To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Weekly Ohio State journal (Columbus, Ohio : 1841), 1843-04-19

Weekly Ohio State journal (Columbus, Ohio : 1841), 1843-04-19 page 1

WEEK LI 0 TATE) JOURNA 10 VOLUME XXXIII. I'UBUSHJiU BVEKV WED.NKSDAV, BV IIIAHI.KH BMUOTT. Office comer of High (uid Town iUccia, JJuldes' Building. . TERMS. TnitEE Dollars Fkr annum, which may be discharged by the payment of Two Dollars and Fifty Cents in advance, at the ollice. Tlio Journal is alio published daily during the session o the Legislature and thrice a week the remainder of the year for i and three tunes a week, yearly, fr t. The Penitentiary Investigation. IM-HOHITY HKI'OBT. HOUSE OF IIEPRKHENTATIVEM, March 13, 1018. Ma. Woopbridoe, from the minority of the joint elect commiltee, to winch the subject was referred, mode tlio following REPORT! The undersigned, a moinbor of the joint select committee appointed "to investigate the official conduct of William I). Van Hook, while acting in the capacity of Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, and the causes which led to his removal from oifice." &.C., finding himself unublo to concur in the conclusions at which the other two members of the committee have arrived, respectfully submits the following minority report. The testimony taken by the committee covers 184 pages of large folio paper The Legislature will adjourn on Monday next. The undersigned was not a-woro, until within a few days, that it would be necessary for him to submit a separate report. The chairman nf the committee needed the testimony until last Monday night, to enable him to prepare the report o, .1.- ..'.I... Tt I... 1 aln.a tl.nl tima haan in f l,& IIIO Ill'lJUIIvy IK una urn - diih,-, uiuo un, n possession of the undersigned, and he has other engagements, in the hurry of the close of the session, that cannot bo deferred. These considerations will compel htm to be brief, and to pass in silence over many matters, both of fuct and inference, to which otherwise, he would have folt it his duty to advert at somo length. If, however, from these circumstances, time be wanting for a full discussion ofilio various topics embraced in the testimony, he feels no apprehension that, even in the limited tune he can devote to the subject, he will be unable to make his conclusions, and the leading facts by which he has been conducted to thorn, clearly intelligible. There is neither discrepancy nor contrariety iii the testimony. Though voluminous, it displuys, with transparent cleurnoss, the facts winch it discloses. The only question, as the undersigned believes, is as to the credibility of the witnesses. If they are worthy of belief, Mr. Van-Hook cannot be innocent. The evidence is stronger gainst him since, than it was Ifore this investigation. He produced a great number of witnesses before the committee, but not one nf litem testified aught against tho character of either ofthoadverso witnesses. This is a remarkable fact in the case, and deserves attention. The cross examination to which the principal witnesses against htm were subjected, was extremely elaborate, it was conducted without limitation or restraint as to tho time or topics. Its effect, in every instance, was only to bring out more fully, and strikingly to confirm, the facts previously stated. It removed all doubt if any before existed, of the truth and candor of the witnesses. Tho niost iiiqiurtaut testimony against Mr. Van llook is that of Richard Jeffries. Ills character is fully sustained by the wit-cesses examined upon that subject- Farther lesii-tnony to the samo effect, from a large number of the most respectable citizens of Columbus, wus tendered at the close of the investigation. The committee declined to receive it, and assigned as the reason that his character already stood fair before them, and needed no farther support-After as careful a review of tho testimony as the time would permit, tho undersigned has been able to perceive no reason, whatever, to distrust the truth of any of the witnesses. It is cheerfully conceded, that until the facts to which the investigation relates came to light, Mr. Van Hook sustained a fair character. Nevertheless, if the testimony taken by the committee be tnie, howevor painful it may be to despoil a good name, or to cast additional shades Uon a bad one, in this instance there is no alternative. If perjury has not been committed by more than one of the witnesses, Mr. Van Hook is guilty of all the charges alleilged against him previous lo tho investigation. This opinion is not a matter of choice with the undersigned, nor the result of prejudice. He would greatly have preferred to concur in the views of the majority. His convictions have been forced upon him by the evidence He has found its cfiect inevitable nd irresi-ttiblo. His conclusions are the result of a moral necessity, which ho could not control. llefore proceeding to examine tho testimony with reference to the scvcrul charges, it is deemed proper to pause for a moment, and revert to the history of tho subject, from the beginmg of the inquiry down to the commencement of this investigation. It appears that the facta charged, or most of them, first reached tho public ear in the spring of 1812. Rumors then became rife, that Mr. Van Hook had, in various instances, been guilty of gross fraud and peculation. Public opinion compelled the directors to make an investigation. Mr. Von Hook was nolo-lied of their purpose. Tho investigation was gono into. He was present during a greater part of tho time, and cross examined several of the witnesses. I Iml ho chosen, ho might have been present during the whole time. Tho following facts wore proved : that he had, in various instances, secretly purloined money from the visitor's box : tint he had defrauded the State out of (large amount of pork raised at the prison ; a part of it he had consumed himself, and the rest ho had charged to the citato ; that ho had appropriated to himself two bolts of cotton cloth bo-longing to the State, falsely pretending that he had bought and paid fur it himself; and, lastly, that he collected dues to the State in depreciated puier, compelling those of whom it was received to pay a premium sufficient tn make it equal to specie funds, and that he hail paid over the depreciated paper to the State as of par value, and pocketed the premium himself, without rendering any account of it. The proof was uncontradicted, and, seeminly, conclusive. He was invited to havo counsel present, mid lo produce witnesses in his behalf. He did neither, llo made no elfin In defend himself, except by cross examining some of tho witnesses, llo did not propose then, nor at any future period to vindicate himself, and gave no reasons for not taking stcs nbviously so important to his character. A majority, if not all the directors woro his friends. He was told that if ha could rebut, or satisfactorily explain, the evidence aga fiat him, ho would be retained in bis office but that, otherwise, the directors would be compelled to dischargo him. He still made neither ttllcr nor cllbrt tu disprove the charges. The directors finally removed him. He then requested to be allowed to remain a month longer. He also appealed, with repeated tears, to tho sympathies of the directors, fur himself and his family, and besought them tn give him a certificate that would soothe and relieve the feelings of the hater. It was understood that if given, it should not go upon the books of the institution, Mr. Van llook promised to hold it as1 private paper," and to exhibit It only to Ins lumiiy and particular friends. Overcome by his entreaties and tears, and their own sympathies, thus wrought tqion, the directors gavo limi such a poior. It wus ffuardcdlv written. It anoko in terms ul commenda tion of his general administration of tho affairs of tho prison, but was carclully silent as to nis integrity, lus honesty, and his character. Notwithstanding tlio assurances upon which tins paper was given, it was forthwith publicly exhibited by Mr. van noon, ai stultifying and inculpating the directors, and falsify. ing all the alledged grounds of his removal. These facts are all clearly proven by tha testimony of the directors. Can there be any dilforence of opinion as to his conduct in regard to tho investigation and to Uiis certificate ? Was il that of an honest or innocent man? To the mind of tho undersigned, it throws a strong light upon the character of Mr. Van llook, and shows clearly his own consciousness of the predicament in which he stood, and of tho truth of the chatgoa upon which tlis directors acted in removing him. He was willing to meet by art, management, and indirection, what ho dared not to confront and openly encouuter. At tho extra session in July last, alter a considerable struggle, a resolution was passed by tho Senate, which drew forth, for the first time, the testimony taken by the directors. Mr. Van Hook thereiiion requested an investigation by a cotnniitteo appointed by thn Legislature. This request was not acceded to. Tho testimnoy was extensively republished in the nowepapcr press, and produced much remark and excitement. At the present session, Mr. Van Hook renewed hit request for a further investigation, and the appointment and action of tins committeo is the result. Tha resolution, under which tho committeo have acted, seems to emhraco the conduct of tho Directors, in regard tn Mr. Van Hook, as well as that of Mr. Van Hook himself. It is, therefore, the duty of tho committeo to express an opinion upon the former subject, as well as the latter, it is doomod proper hero to consider that question. The courso of the directors towards Mr. van Hook, during the invotli- Salion, was all that ho could havo asked. Tho evi-enra fully warranted his removal. They could not havo done otherwise, without receiving tho pointed condemnation of (very honest man acquainted wiLh the facts before them. Upon this subject the committee are unanimous in their views. They acquit the directors of all blame, and award them their decided commendation. Tho evidence will now be presented in connection with tho charges, respectively to which it relates. 1 Purloining money from the Vititori box. Richard Jeffries I am Clerk of the Ohio Penitentiary, and have acted as such, since the 1st of February, 1840. Boon after I commenced my duties as Uerk, 1 several tunes thought 1 missed money from the Visitor's Box. On the 21st and 22d of February, 18)0, Mr. Van Hook received money from visitors and rendered no account of the same tho amount I am not able to state. I saw him receive it, and kept the account of the visitors' fund, and know that it was never entered, If Mr. Van Hook had paid that money in, I certainly would have known it, for I counted that fund. Upon one occasion, when I counted the funds of the institution, to balance the cash account, there were four dollars missing. Mr. Van Hook came in at the time 1 was counting it. Mr. V. H. hud gone up stairs and came down in his stocking feet, and inquired of me if my cash account came out right ; I told hiot it did not exactly balunce, but wou!d cuunt it over again, which I did, with the same results, it falling short four dollars. In the morning, Mr. V. II. went to town, and as soon as he returned I informed him that there were four dollars missing out of the funds, and asked him if he knew any thing about it ? Ho stated that he did not 1 told him I was not in the habit of making such mistakes. He said that Mr. Mills, the former Clerk, frequently made such mistukes, or some language to that effect He told me to make up the deficiency out of the visitors' fund, and say nothing about it; which I did as he directed. Soon after that, I missed funds out of the Visitors' Box. I never left tho ollice to go any place, without leaving Mr, Van llook there, or informing the guard that I was going. I havo several times taken all the money out of the Visitors' Box, except a one dollar bill mid some change, and in my absence that would be taken out, 1 frequently used this pre caution with the same results. Mr. Van Hook had a key to that box as well as myself. I frequently niquircu oi me guaiu who nau ueeu in tnu uiuce, he stated that noono had been but Mr. Van Hook, I did not make any inquiries of the guard until I was satisfied that money had been taken. In November of the same year, (1840,) some person broke open the drawer that the key of the safe was kept in, and unlocked the safe and stole nil the money that was then in tho safe. The Visitors' Box was also broken open, and the lock Bpoilcd. We had to get another box made, and another, lock also, to which thero was but one key, I did not miss any money for some time after that I went on a visit to my friends in Fair, field county, the keys and all were delivered to Mr. Vun Hook, when I went away. Snonufter 1 returned, I found the snme old game going on. I talked with tho guard stationed in the guard room, and stated to him what was going on in tho office, thul money had been missing very Irequently, and 1 was determined 1 would find out who was tutting it, mid directed him to watch every one that came in tho office, nnd he said he would do so. Some time after this, Mr. Van Hook sent me to town for his letters and pajiers ; before I started, I went into the guurd room and told Mr. Christ that I was going up town, and said to him that I wanted he should keep a Bharp lookout. 1 was gone but a short tunc : when 1 re turned, Mr. Christ informed me that Mr. Van Ilouk had been into the Visitors' Box, and also tho sale. .Mr. Van Hook left I he ollice soon alter I returned; I opened the Visitors' Box, and also the safe, and found that there was five dollars missing out of the visitors' fund in the safe. Mr. Van Hook would send me awny, and when I returned, ho would any thut I ought to leave the key of tho Visitors' Dox, so that he could mako change. On one occasion, while I was sitting in the guard room, 1 saw Mr. Van llook passing into the ollice; I heard something crack, us though it was the spring of the lock of the Visitors' llox ; I stepped to tho window nnd saw Air. van Hook havo the box open ; when I started from tho wimlow, I heard the lid of tho Visitors' Box cIobo; when I went in, Mr. Van Hook was standing by the tiro place with a paper in his hand; dinner being reaily, Mr. Van Hook left the ollice. I went to the Visitors' Mox to see il anv inonev hud been taken. and found the box unlocked. I do not know whether there was biiv money missing or not ; I could not tell. I was satisfied that Mr. Vun Hook had a key, and kept it secretly. I had no means of ascertaining Uie exact amount that was taken in those two years. 1 think the amount would bo some lifty or sixty dollura, and pcrhajis more. question dv it. r cipatding, r.sq., .tlr. Van Hook's counsel,) Had Mr. Van Hook not a right, as Warden, to keep a key to tho Visitor's Box ? Answer He had a right to keep a key, but I con tend he had no right to keep it secretly. Question by the Bamo How public should he have mudo it ? Answer Ho should not have denied to mo of having a key. Question by the same Did Mr. Van Hook tell you a falsehood about the key, and if bo, under what circitmstunces ? Answer He had said to me, frequently, that ho had no key, and I saw him huve tho Visitor's Box open. Jons IIurrMAH Question by Mr. Swayno Do you remember to have had a conversation with Mr. Jeffries, about the 22d of February, 1840, in regard to the money received from visitors, on that or the succeeding day ? Answer A short time after the hurry was over, Mr. Jeffries informed me that ho had taken in about $:100, or a little ovor, and ho also told me, that Mr. Van Hook had taken in some, and that ho had not got it yet J mix S. Christ In 1810 I took charge of tho guard room, some time in September. Shortly after, on Mr. Jellries leaving the ollice, ho directed ine to pay attention to it ; and, frequently, on his return, he would ask mo if any person hail been in tho otlicc. I replied, no one, except Mr. Van Hook. It passed on until, probably, the last of July, or first of August, 1841, at which timo Mr. Jellries informed me that ha had frequently missed money from the visitor's box in tho ollice; and he directed mo to pay particular attentiun to every one that went into the ollice, nono excepted. I told him I would. Ill a few days after Mr. Jelfries camo to the guard room where I was and told mo that Mr. Van Hook wanted him to go up to the Post Ollice, after some letters and papers; ho also stated that he wanted mo to keep shurp look out, that he expected there would bo something going on in tho office. Shortly after he left, or by the time ha was clearly nut of sight, I saw Mr. Van llook start tn go up stairs. I le camo down in a minute or two, and walked to the front door, and looked out. He camo back to tho guard room door. After looking into the guard room, ho left that, ami went back to tho ollico, walked in to tho desk, whero the visitor's box was, when I stepetl on tho slejw of the guard room, 1 saw Mr. Van Hook unlock and open the visitor's box. When Mr. Jelfries returned, 1 heard Mr. Vun Hook suy to him, that when hu went nwuy he ought to leave the key to tho visitor's box, bo that ho could make clianuo, in caso any visitors should como, A few moments before, Mr. Van llook had been into the visitor's box. I saw Mr. Van Hook walk towurds the corner where the sufu stands. I saw him stoop down, and heard tho apring of the bolt of tho safe. When Mr. Jelfries returned, ho informed me tint fivo dollars were missing out of the safe. II Jit lo the Cotton. A. B. Christ On or about tho 4th of April, 1810, thero was a lot of muslin arrived at tho prison, for the use of the prison, and I had it taken up into tha tailor and shoe shop, which shops I had charge of at that time. I had the bales opened ; I took a piece of paper and pencil, and act down the number of vanls that was marked nn osrli ninen , I hitd ihAmit.. tin sent into a room thut wns kept for this purpose. I then went to the desk and added up tho number of yards ; 1 found it was Uit.1 yards, I thon set down in a book Iho number of ynrds which was kept fir that purpose, and other things which I choso to put on that book, such as clothing made for tho prisun, A:c I then took pen and ink, and a small niece of paper and Bot down the whole number of yards, ItsKi, and put it into my pocket to carry It to the ollice thut evening to compare it with the bill ; a few hours after I had the muslin opened and taken into the room, Mr. Van Hook came into the shop, end asked mo if tho muslin was up in the room ; 1 told him it was; he anid ho would go up and look at it, and did so and returned in a short timo, probably ten minutes and informed me that he ihougnt it tho cheapest and best lot of muslin that was ever bought for tho pris on. 1 told him I thought it was good, stout mushn, and cheap. He then left the shop, and in a few days, aftor, returned and said, Mr. Christ, there is two pieces of that muslin belonging to me, that I bought lor, my own use, and, oayB he, it is something finer than tho rest I think the pieces havo my name on them, did you soo any of them ? I answered no, that I had not Been t piece or pieces with his namo op; he said it was two pieces that ho had bought expressly for his own use, it was something finer than the rest llo then said that he would go up into tho room and seo whether he could find it ; ho was there a short lima, and returned from the room, and informed mo that he found the two pieces with his namo on, and had laid them one side, he said that he would send up for them ; when I told him at the time, that i could send it down to him. He said I need not mind, that he would send up for them ; ho then left the shop. I then went up into the room and found tho two pieces laid one side with tho letters V. II. marked on each pieco, with red chalk. I compared the muslin to see if I could discover any ditlerence, and I found that there was no ditlerence that I could discover, with the pieces that I compared with. I then took the number of yards that was marked on each of the two pieces, and added it together, which made 53 or 54 yards, I am not positive which. I then set the number of yards down, undor the 11139 yards, bo as to show that 53 or 54 yards belonged to Mr. Van Hook, and how much belonged to the State. Three or four days after that, the pieces of muslin were sent fur, and they woro taken out of the shop, to Mr. Van llook, who, I suppose, sent for them. This piece of paper which I put into my pocket, intending to compare with the bill. I found the clerk busy that evening, receiving reports, and so it was not compared that evening. A few days after thut 1 offered it tn the clerk, and he then said he was busy and could not look at the bill then, and said that some other time would answer as well. I carried that piece of paper some tour or five days and lost it, and thought no more about it until some time after I left the prison, which was in May, 1841. Some time after that, I do not know how long, I heard nf Mr. Van Hook's misconduct about a number of things, I then related tho circumstance of the muslin, to a particular friend of mine, Thomas Stitt, and told him that when I would return to the prison sometime, 1 would go to the book and get the number ol yards, and tako it to the ollico to have it compared with the bill, which I did in the month of April, I think, 1842; and I found that the Slate had paid for 1030 yards. I then asked the clerk if Mr. Van llook had been charged with 53 or 54 yards of muslin. Ho looked and answered mo, he had not I then related the circumstance to the clerk. Amprew H. Patterson, (one of the directors.) Question by Mr. Swayne Do you know what considerations induced Mr. Van Hook to reduce one of the credits on his privato account for pork, by making an alteration in the book, and tn cause himself to be charged with "52 or 53 yards of muslin" which he had previously got, and if so, please state tkciu, and stntc, in addition, every thing within your hnowledgc, muterial to a full understanding of his conduct to regard to those mutters ? I received a lino from the other directors, saying that I must come hero to assist in an investigation, und accordingly, I came to Columbus; tins was about the 0th or lOih of June, 1842, or thereabouts ; and again met with Mr. Van Hook, and told him that I had come here for the purpose of holding an investigation in relation to tho charges against him, and nguin Sioke of the pork, and also named the charge in relation to the muslin. I think 1 named other charges to him ; at the same time I told him nf all the charges I had heard, against him. Mr. Vun Hook replied that ho was perfectly willing that an investigation should be gone into, und that we would liud that tho account had been made right In this consultation, Mr. Vun Hook referred particularly to the two items, to wit : tho pork and muslin. The alteration, as to the pork item, and the onlry as to tho muslin, wore made on tho books between the time of the first conversation above mentioned, nnd the first time I ever saw the books, which was during the in vestigation. Question bv same Did ho at onv time, durinrr the investigation, endeavor to establish the fuct that he had had it (me muslin,) taken to his own apartments, merely to be made up for the prisoners ? Answer lie asked one of tho witnesses if it had not been customary with Mr. Medbery, to havo clothing made up in the house, for the use of the prison. and ho stated ho could prove by a lady then in the nouse, wnom ne snouiu decline calling, thut such hud been the custom. Question by same Did you understand him as conveying thn idea that such wus the fact in regard to me tnusiin in question t Answer In the first instance, he did, but did hot insist upon it Tho testimony of tho witness, was, that he had no knowledge that such hud ever been the custom. Wi. Si-escer, (one of tho directors.) Question bv Mr. Swnvne Have vnu read Mr. Patterson's testimony upon his reexamination, relative to the course of Mr. Van Hook, during the investigation, in regard to the 53 yards of muslin? Answer i nave. Question by same Does vour recollection of the facts, testified to by him, agree with his statement ? Answer it docs. Question by same Did Mr. Van Hook manifest a disposition to catch at or avail himself of the suggestion that tho muslin had been taken into his house, merely to be mudo up for the prisoners until that idea was rebutted by the testimony ? Answer ir Van Hook did appear as though the fact had inst occurred to him. thut such wns tho case. and stated that it was customary so to do. Question by same When did it appear Mr. Vun Hook had hail himself charged with tint muslin ? Answer According to mv recollection, a short timo, soy a week or ten days before the investigation. Utiostion by same What etatcnionl did he make in rcgurd to the muslin ? Answor llo insisted that the muslin belonged to him, thut ho had bought it for himself. Question by same Did he trivo anv reason for having it charged to himself before the investigation ? Answer i uo not recollect tuut ho did. RiciiARo Jeffries, Question bv Sir. Swnvne Will vou examine tho book, and stato when the item nf 5 J yards of muslin wns charged to Mr. Van Hook ? Answer I do not know; he came in and told mo. and I entered it without date, but 1 think it was in June. Question by same What is the date of tho entrv next preceding it? Answer May HI, 1842. Ill J lo Pork. Nathaniel Mepdery. Question by Mr. Swayno How many hogs did you leave at the penitentiary, belonging to the State, when Mr. Van llook succeeded vou there as warden ? Answer I cannot now recollect the exact number. should say, from my best recollection, from forty to sixty, of all sites. Question by same Did vou, prior to leaving the prison, give those hogs, or any of them, to Mr. Van HOOK f Answer I did not. Question bv samo Did vou. at anv time, visit tho nog pen wan Mr. van llook I Answer 1 do not recollect of having dono so. Question by sumo Would vou not recollect it if you nud .' Answer My impression is that I should. Question by same did vou at anv tune, before or after leaving the prison, say any thing to Mr, Van Honk, from which he could infer that you gavo him all tho hogs at the prison ? Answer 1 should say that nothing occurred be tween us, from which any such inference could be drawn. In the first place, tho hogs belonged to tho institution, and could not huvo been girrn away by mo. I considered them worth, to the orison, i'rom two to threo hundred dollars annually. If they M beiunged to ine, i certainly should not have given them away, as I could readily have sold them. question by same When did the Itrst conversa tion between Mr. Van Hook and vnursolt occur, in which any of tho hogs at the prison were mentioned ? and what was said in that conversation? Answer soon after leaving the charge of tho pris on, (in June, 1831M I went oast, and was out ot the State, until the latter part nf September following, at which timo 1 returned. It hud beon mv practice to keep four or fivo hogs of my own ; at tho timo of leaving me institution, 1 lorgot to mention, or many way disKise of tho hogs belonging lo me. On my return, the subject occurred to me, and observed to Mr. Van llook that I was the owner of some four or fivo hogs, (am not positive whether four or five ;) that I hud forgotten to mention or have them included with other things (furniture) that I had sold him ; and that all I would then churi'n him for, was, that ho might furnish me with a barrel of pork the next winter oeing worm snout one halt wnat 1 considered the hogs worth. This proioaition was acceded to, and accordingly l got the barrel ol pork. Question by samo Did you, at any time, ssy to ,Yir. Van llook that you did not consider yoursell pla ced at tho prison to raise hogs for the Stato of Ohio; nnd that your practice had been to lake Irom the hogs thoro, what pork yon wanted for your own use, and tn give tho State tho residue; or anything to that al loc If Answer No such conversation, or anything like it ever occurred betweenMr. Van Hook and myself. Question by Mr. Spalding Did you havo any con vorsalion with Mr. Van llook, in relation to the hogs at tho prison, whether belonging to the State or your self, previous to your return Irom the east, in the latter part of September ? Answer None that I recollect of. Question by Bamo May you not havo had a conversation with him on that subject, and hove forgot toll tno circumstance .' COLUMBUS, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1843. Answer Such a thing is barelv possible, but as I have before stated, I have not tho remotest recollection of any conversation on the subject ; and stuta decidedly, from my best recollection, that no conver sation or explanation took place in regard to the hogs, previous to my leaving uie prison. Question by Mr. bwayne When vou told Mr. Van Hook, after your return from the east that "four or five" of the hogs at the prison belonged to you, did ne claim, or intimate, mat you had given htm the hogs there, or any part of them? Answer 1 certainly havo no recollection of any such claim or intimation having been made by Mr. van noon. Marti White. Question by Committeo State, if vou know nf nny fraudulent or dishonost conduct, on the part of Win. 11. van liooK.as warden ol thoUhio feiuten- tiary ? Answer In the fall of 1839 I woa put in tlis kitchen, to take charge of the affairs thero. A short time after that, I was ordered to slaughter some hogs ; after they wore slaughtered, Mr, Van Hook came to ine and told me there was t certain quantity to go to Mr. Medbcrry, and gave me direction how to put up tho balance ; three barrels were tn be up tor the State, and credited to him. Ho gave me a small dook, when 1 went into the Kitchen, to keep his own accounts upon, and charged me very particularly, if there was any thing got out of the kitchen for him, to put it down in this book, but not to put any price to it as ho knew the prices better than 1 did, but told me to Keep an exact account of tho weizhl or mea sure, as the case might be. I do not recollect the number of hogs sluoghtered in the full or 1831); but think, about six or eight In the winter of 1840-4 1, there was hogs killed at three dull-rent limes, at.d the pork all credited to Mr. Van Hook, with the exception of four barrels, which were put up for Mr. van hook, tor nis own use, without any credit or charge. A. McLlvaipc (one of the directors.) Question bv Mr. Snaldinir Vou have said that the directors, upon examinatinn of the prison, found the discipline to be good; the books and vouchers correct ; tho contracts thon existing taken on terms favorable to the State; but that the directors did not think tho private account of Mr. Van llook was correct; please to state, specifically, wherein thut private account was incorrect Answer 1 considered, from an examination of his private account and from the kitchen book, that an alteration had been made of two thousand pounds of pork, in nno place, in that account and that ho was cliargouble, in that account, lor pork he hud got, which hud not been charged. Question by Mr. Swavno do vou know when tho alteration in the private account of which you have spoken, was made ? Answer It appeared that it was mode a short timo before the investigation, perhaps a month or so i do not Know exactly nt wnat time it was made. Question by same Wus it made alter Mr. Van Hook had been apprised that he was charged with appropriating to his own use pork belonging to the State, and that an investigation was about to be made in regard to that and the other matters against mm r Answer Il was made after there woro rumors out that there were things wrong at the prison; but I do noiKhow whether Mr. Van llook bad been lulormod that there would be an investigation or not. Question by tho same Did it appear that the clerk who had charge of the book had been consulted about such alteration, or was apprised of it, at the time it was made? Answer I do not know as to that, but there was a very angry feeling between them about it Question by same Were there other credits on the books, to Mr. Vun Hook, for pork, to which it ap-cured ho was not entitled ? Answer llicro wus. Question by same Were any of those credits stricken out or altered ? Answer They were not Question by same Was that tho reason it became necessary to chargo M.Vau Hook with the sum of 111 115, in order to make that part ofhis account correct?Answer It was. Question by same After the investirution. did Mr. Van Hook admit that the charge of 141 1)5. on account of pork, was correct: and did ho settle that Hem without objection f Answer I understood he was satisfied, and the account was closed that way. Question by same Were the directors unanimous in charging him with thutsmounton account of pork, which they thought ne had improperly taken credit fur? Answer They were, W. Spe.ocer. Question by Mr. Swavne Did you make the cal culation which resulted in charging Mr. Vun llook in his private account after Uie investigation with the sumot (till US for pork? Answer I did. Question by samo After thn investigation was closed, did he dispute the correctness of that charge? Answer- -lie did not. Question by samo Did he settlo and account lo the State for that item of the account, after the charge was made t Answer He did; that was included in his account in closing the settlement Question by Mr. Spalding rrom what dala did you make up the charge of $141 llongainstMr. Van llook, for error in pork from the kitchen book, tho running account book, or Doth r Answer The chargo of $141 05 was made up of threo different items ; one, on the kitchen book for pork, passed to the credit of CoL Van llook, amounting to $71 CO. The two others stand credited on the running account book, one for pork, amounting to !?53 01 ; and the other, also, for pork, 837 pounds at two cents per pound, amouotinglo$Ul 74; the foregoing items amuunt to a few cents more than Iho charge made against Mr. Van llook, which discrepancy was owing to an error in adding up the amount at tlio timo the chargo was made. There are other items ot pork that appear on the kitchen books, which was not satisfactorily explained, and, consequently, no account was taken of it It wna tho design of the directors to chargo him with all the pork which had been passed to his credit, from the hogs fattened nt the Penitentiary, and belonging to the Stato. Wo considered that all tlio hogs fattened there, belonged to tho citato. Andrew II. Patterson tn the latler part of May, I mot with Mr. Van Hook in Columbus, and told him of some charges that were made against him, in relation to some pork, and ho replied, tlio pork was from some hogs given him ly Mr. Medbery, former warden. R. Jeffries, Question by Mr. Spalding At what timo was the nlterutit.n made by Mr. Van Hook, in the credit of 2000 pounds of pork in his private account ? Answer I think it was in May, irn Quesiion hy same Did you not strenuously resist that alteration? and did not the perseverance of .Mr. Van llook, in striking out Uie '.fit "J pounds pre viously credited lo him, occasion much bitterness of feeling, and call forth threuts on your part, that you would ruin, or seriously injure bun ? Answer When the account of the pork came in from tho kitchen, Mr. Van Hik camo in and inquired of mo, for his little bonk, he wanted to see if Mr. White had given him credit for all his pork; 1 han ded loin his book ; ho examined the 2837 pounds, and stated that it woa (85 Ii5 for provisions ; he stated that he wanted nie tn deduct tho amount of tlio pork, which was $."0 5, and charge bun with the balance, stating to bill of provisions as per kitchen book ;' because I entered it plain upon the books, charging him tho $85 115 and crediting him with $Csi 74 ; he fell out with ine and stated that I must do as he ordered me, and was very angry about it. This was probably on tho first of April, lr!l2. Sometime after that he camo in and referred to his account and wanted me to alter ono half of tho amount I asked him if it wna not right; ho staled it was, but the directors might think it loo much, I told him I could not alter it, inasmuch as he had abused me for entering it tho wav I did. I told him he could alter it as well as 1 could, and he took the book and altered it, taking olf '2000 pounds, and threatened to discharge me. Question by Mr. Swayne Do Mr. Van Honk's credits for pork, in his private account, show tho whole amount of credits he received for pork ? Answer They do not; ho was charged on tho kitchen book for provisions, and creditrdfor pork; Iho ono was deducted from the other, and tho balance was entered into Uie running account book the pork was deducted from the bill for provisions; the bill for provisions was generally the largest, and the balance was entered to his debit in the private account Question by same Will you give en instance of this kind from tho privato account, in Ilia running account book, before you, and stale the particulars of tlio process by which the result, in Uiat instance, was arrived at ? Answer In Mr. Van Hook's privato account, is this entry, "June ,10th, 1841 : To hill of provisions as per account, kitchen book, $47 fill ;" the bill of provisions amounted to (II!) ltl ho had a credit for 2.070 nounds of pork, makiop 4171 fin. which is ile. ducted from the $110 10 and leaves the balance $17 50, which is entered as above stated. Question by same Why was not tho whole amount ot me pork credits, tec, entered in the run ning account book? Answer Because Mr. Van Hook ordered me to make the entry that way. Question by same What reasons did Mr, Van llook assign for giving you such orders ? Answer He said that I had nothing to do with nis nine book, except making Uie entries, as he di reeled me, on the running account book. Question by same How long did you continue to maKo entries in thai wav .' Answer Until March 13, m Question by Bame- Was that entry made in full, with the consent, or by tho direction of Mr, Van Hook? Answer It was not. Question by same Why was it so mado ? Answer Because I heard the pork was not his. Question by same Did he direct vou in that in stance, to deduct the pork from the provision bill, with which he was then charged on the kitchen book, and tn debit his private account with tho balance as lornieriy t Answer He did ? Question by same What was tho amount of his provision bill at that timo, as por the kitchen book, and the quantity of tho pork for which ho claimed a credit ? Answor The provision bill was $85 (15 ; the pork, 2837 pounds, amounting to $50 74. Question by same What reason did Mr. Van Hook give for insisting so strenuously, that only tho balance in that instance, should bo entered in his privato account, and for striking out 2000 pounds, from the pork credit as you have stated ? Answer Ho gave no reason for wanting the bal ance only entered ; that I did of my own accord. He said that he wanted the pork credit altered, be cause tho directors would think it too much; ho wanted me in the first place, to reduce the amount of pork one half. Question by samo When did you first learn that tho pork, for which Mr. Van Hook, was receiving credit, as you have staled, did not belong to him ? Answer I think it was in the summer ot 1841. IV-ITAe Franklin Bank Paper. A. M'Elvaim. Question by Mr. Spalding You havo said there were some other things which vou thouirhtwronr in .Mr, Van Hook, which do not appear in tho private account ; will jou please to state what thoso things are, or were ? Answer There was a per ccntage ho received from Mr. Hayden, and others; the money was paid in Franklin Bunk money, and Mr. Van Hook charged them fivo per centum, and did not account to the State for the Bame, bb it appeurcd from the testimony. uucstion by same Uo you know what rrunklm Dank piicr wus worth in Columbus, as compared with specio or specie pavinir bank naoer in tho month of May last? Answer I think about five percent discount Mr. Jeffries states: Iliad learned that Mr. Van Hook had received Franklin Bank paper, and rccciv- itii live per cent, which he did not pay over to the iisuiuiion. Question bv Mr, SpaldinL' I wish to know from you if there is any other within your knowledge, who has ever testified, or is prepnrcd to testify thut Mr. Vnn Hoo'i did not account for tho five oer cent, on the Frnuklin Hank paper, besides yourself? Answer 1 think ihere is, air. 1 Hunk Mr. Hayden will testify, thut the five per cent wus not accounted lor until alter tlio investigation, and also Mr. Warner.Question by Mr. Swavne Did Mr Van Hook give you any account of the percentage or premium id to you hy Mr. Hayrlen,on the Frunklin Bank paper? Answer io sir, no did not Question by same Has thai per centals ever been charged to Mr. Van Hook, on the books of the prison, or in any way accounted for by him to the State? Answer no; 1 understood that it wns paid back to Mr. Hnyden by order of the directors. Peter Hatpk. Question bv Mr. Snaldinir Did Mr. Van Hook ro. fund to you twenty dollars, that was received from your clerk, as discount upun $100 of Franklin Bank paper, during your absence east i Answer He did. Quesiion bv Mr. Swavne At what time did Mr. Van i look pay back to you the per centago on tho Franklin Bank money ? Answer It was alter his discharre from the nria- on. Mr. Van Hook and myself had a conversation about the matter, after I returned from the east, and a short time before the investicrallon; he said he had heard I was dissntislicd, and, if to, he would pay it hack to ine, and two or three weeks afterwards he did so. A. II. Warmer. Question by Sir. Swavne Did vnu nnv Mr. Van Hook some Franklin Bank money, and a premium on tho same, while ho was Warden of the Penitentiary; if so, state how much, tho amount of tho premium, and when it was paid ? Answer I paid Mr. Van Hook, in April or May last, something short of four hundred dollars, $ J00 was in franklin iinnk paper. 1 natd hint five ner cent, on me .-.uu rrunklm Uank paper; 1 paid it account ol .Mr. Burdell's contract for hands at Iho penitentiary. Question by same Did Mr. Van Hook Bay any uung to vou at ine time on me subject ol not disclosing the matter; if so. what did he sav f Answer Ho said ho would take the money and endeavor to use it Ho said ho did not know but that thero might be an imputation against him for using money at a discount Mr. Van llook said that perhaps, he could use it by paying it out at a small discount He impressed mo with the idea thai ne uiu not wish me tu mention it ; so much so, that I did not mention it for a long time. This testimony speaks for itself. It needs no ar gument to render it intetliirible. nortn noimits oiferr It is marked by the directness and simplicity of truth, and must rivet conviction noon tlio mind of ovory one wno reads it There la some further tes timony in regnrd to each of the charges; but none that detracts from the force of that which has been tooted. It will all bo published. It is, therefore, deemed unnecessary to swell this report b further quoiations. Not even an attempt has been made to explain or renin tlio charge ol purloining money f.om tho visitors' box. It is said that Mr. Vun llook, n iv urucn, uau a ngni lo control it This is admit, led. But had he a right to take it tecrttlu. and with- oni rendering any account? This simplo inquiry demolishes the flimsv pretext under which ho attempts lo shield himself. Why did he keep a key secretly, and deny having ono ? Why did ho cnd lira clerk away, and avail himself of such occasions to abstract money from tho box ? 1 heso are nuestions that cannot he reennritoit with his innocence. It may be said that the sums takun were small in themselves, and small in Uio aggregate. Il is thus that guilt usually commences its career. Many a man will commit a small crime, who would not tenltiro to commit a large one. Such pettv ab stractions might bo overlooked. Tha abstraction of, a large sum would be mure likely to bo followed bv detection and exposure. Finally, Ms proof it dear ana cnnrriisive. i no amount ttiereloro, as regards ine question ol guilt, is immaterial. 1 he same remark mav bo made in rerard to lha fifty-throe yatda of muslin. No ona can read the testimony ut Christ and the directors, on Una sub ject. without being satisfied 1 lint it was the intention t Mr. V an llook to obtain the muslin without paving for it llo told Mr. Christ that lie had "bouulit it;" "that it was his;" and he look it without render ing any account of it to tho clerk. 1 ho testimony shows clearly, that it was bought by, and for tho Slain, with a lares number of oilier pieces. It wot not his, and he knew there was no foundation for such a pretence. After ho was warned that an in vt-atigation was about to be made, and a few days belore it was commenced, he had it charged to hun on the books of the prison. Why was this delay in making the charge? Why was it msdo at that particular time? The keenest accumcn may be safely challenged to rcconcilo llieso lacts with tlio slightest supposition of Ins innocenco. 1 here was a circum- stance in his conduct during the fonnor investiga tion, that goes further to confirm tho truth of i!ub chargo, I lo caught eagerly at tlio suggestion of one ol the directors, in lus elimination ot a witness upon this subject, that the cotton might havo been taken into hiB house merely to he made up for the prison, and manifested a dtsptwitinn to insist that such had been tho tact When he lound Uiat the testimo ny would not sustain him on this ground, ho at once abandoned it (See the second deposition nf A. II. Patterson, and tho deposition of William Spencer.) He claims that the hogs were given tn him by Mr. Medbery, Iho former warden. Mr. Medbery's testimony shows thai there was not a shadow of reason for such a pretence, and that Mr. Van llook could not havo been mistaken upon the subject Mr.Med-bery states, that the hogs were worth from two to three hundred dollars por year to tho prison. He could nn mora have thought of giving Mr. Van llook the hogs, than any other properly belonging to the State. Nor, if ho had claimed them a his own, could Mr. Van Hook have expected to receive from him so valuable a donation ? Thero is ono fact stated by Mr. Medbery, which is conclusive upon the subject Some months after he had quitted the prison, remembering that he had left four or five hoga there, belonging to himself, which he had not mentioned to Mr. Vsn Hook ; he then montioned the subject to him, and proposed to give them to him for a barrel of pork. Mr. Van Hook accepted the odor, and did not claim, or pretend, that Mr. Medbery had previously given or sold him those or any other hogs. It is, also, a tact worty of note, that when Mr. Medbery was examined in the investigation made h rha directors, Mr. Van Hook, although he must have known thq importance of his testimony, neither attended, nor caused him to be asked a single question, His conduct in regard lo the por centage uion the Franklin Bank paper, was nn less culpable. He was authorized by the directors to recoivo it at par. He exacted from Mr. Hayden's clerk five per cent upon it He passed over the oaner tn die nrilnn nf nr value, and pocketed the premium, without giving any account of it. After the fact came to light, he called upon Mr. Hayden and paid the premium back, Tho Franklin Bank paper was then worth live per cent Icbb than gold or silver. It is said in his justification, Ihut he received some of the same kind of paper from the Slate, at par, in payment of hie salary. Does this excuse his exacting a premium, when he was authorised to rcceivo the paper at par, and then pocketing tho premium without rendering anv ac count of it? This pretence, and afterthought, are too shallow to require a serious answer. It wore easy for the undersigned, greatly to multiply and extend his remarks, in regard to each of tno enarges. it would bo an unnecessary consumption of time tn do so. He deems what he has said more than sufficient. His purpose is simply to discharge his duty, snd to do it as briefly as possible. V The Uobbery of the Safe. The undersigned, considers it his dutv. also, to present Uie evidence upon this Bubjcct It is as follows : Joil.t IIiiffmah, (Deputy Warden of Penitentiary.) viuesuuii oy mr. nwnyne At what tune was the drawer oiened, snd the safe robbed ? Answer I think it was m Uiofall of 1811. Question by samo Do you know how much mnn. cy was taken ? Answer 1 think in the neighborhood of $300, but I am not certain. Question by same Please state the facts, within yoor knowledge, in regard to that subject? ' wna nine orawer in ine neas, in which the key of the aafo was knot : the hniior ihst shut over it had been pried open ; the drawer had ocen opened by cutting around where the bolt of the lock nin up; the kev had been obtained, and the safe opened; the little drawer on tho insido of the safe hud been broken or pried open, and act out These facts came to my knowledge eurly in the morning ; I think before sunrise. Question bv same Vrss there a rnnvnpsstinn An the anbicct that morninn in rl,n nV. .n,l ;r . state who were present ut it? Answer I did not hoar any conversation ; a number were present, among them woro Mr. Van Hook and Bsiley. Quesiion by some Did Mr. Van Hook, soon after. say any Uiing lo you abuut Bailey ; if so, stato what it was ? Answor A day or two after that, he said. I should keep my eye on Bailey; Ihot ho felt suspicious of him ; and not to say any thing about it, but keep it to myself. Question by same Did he tell vou of what ha suspected Bailey ? Answer He sustiectPd Bailey or breaking open the safe ; that was what he meant Question by same Did he discharge Bailey ? Answer No. Question by Mr. Snaldinir Did not Mr. Van Hnolr tell you the reason why he suspected Bailoy ; and, if so, what was Uint reason ? Answer the reason was. that Ballcv was shout buying a house and lot. A prisoner made tho inquiry of sacob Huffman, if he knew Bailey, and remarked, that Bailey was worth watching; tho latter part of the conversation wc bad sometime after tha first Question by same Did not Mr. Vsn Hnnlr ins yourself make an examination of the ollice windows, nnd tho ground sdjaccnt; if so, what traces did you discover of one of the windowa havinpr been opened, and were there footsteps on the ootaidc ? Answer we did not discover that the window had been opened ; the ground was a little torn up about the window. I don't recollect that there were any font prints. Question by ssme Was there not another person Biispecled, of the namo of Hanley, w ho had been t sen-ant in tho office, &c ? Answor there was. It was the general suspicion, by all hands, that llanly was the ono who broke open the office. Question by Mr. Swayne You have staled that you saw no appearance of foot prints under tho window, and nono of the windows having been opened. Was tho ground under the window so oft that feet there would havo left their prints ? Answer I think it was. Question by samo What reason was there for suspecting Hanley? Answer There was no reason, except that he wa a runner there a short time before, and might have seen Mr. Jelfries open tho safe, and know where he kept Uie key. The same man has been since brought bsck a prisoner. He had been prisoner before. Question by same You have stated that Hanley waa suspected by all hands at the tine. Was another person suspected very soon afterwards ; and, if so, who was it? Answer There was no othor man suspected very soon afterwards, until about the time of Uie investigation by the directors. 1 was in tho cooper's shop, and Mr. llelford, who had charge of Uiat shop, asked me if Mr. Bailey had ever told me who he saw Uio morning that the safe was broken open, coming out of the front ollice at Iho aide door, and run across the passage and enlor the parlor in his atocking fcot, and nothing but his pantaloons and shirt on, I answered him, no, I had not He then told mo that him and Mr. Bailey was on the watch together the next night after tho aafe waa broken open ; Bailey told him that he saw a man run out of that door, as I before stated, snd run into the parlor, and the thought struck him that moment that it waa Mr. Van Hook. After Mr. llelford told me this story, I Uien told him what Mr. Van I look had told mo in the office in respect to M r. Bailey. Wilet S. Bailet Question by Mr. Swayne Whero were you at the lime Uio drawer was broken open, and the aafe robbed, at the prison ? Answer I was at the prison Uio morning after the robbery. Question by same Please state any facia in regard lo that Bubject within your knowledgo ? Answor! went up noxt morning just after day light as I usuall dono. and was going in at the front door, when I aaw a man go across the hall into Ihe silling room. I wundored to myself what wus the matter, and thought it unusual lhat Mr. Van Hook should be up so early that morning. I thought it wus earlier than I had usually seen him get up before. I turned my head lo look into the sitting room aa I went past but could not see anvthinir. I went on into the guard room, and aat down. Mr. Hun. man came in soon afterwards and blew the horn. The waiter went into the ollico lo make a fire, and Mr. Rmilh came down stairs at the time, and tho waiter called hint into the ntfice. A short lime afterwards Smith came into the guard room and said Uiat some person had been into the office, and Uiat the safe door was open, and wo all went in to seo what waa Uie matlor, and found the visitors' box cut or broken open, and tho point of a knife laying on Uio desk. I gave Uie knife blade tn Mr. Huffman, who said he would take care of it Mr. Jeffries wna then waked up, and came down, and Mr, Van Hook came into Uie office. There waa some four or fivo of ua there, and I was standing before the fire talking with Mr. llelford, telling hun that I had seen a man, as 1 came in that morning, run across the hall into tho sitting room, Mr. Van llook was standing before ns, anil 1 suppose heard what I said to Mr, llelford. He turned about and walked olf, and made no reply to what I had aaid. Mr. llelford and myself went around and examined under the window to see if we could find any tracks, and found nono. Ve also examined the wall lhat must have been climbed to got into the window, and found no marks on il. We did not examine Ihe siish particularly. The shutters are insido, and I Uiink were not closed that morning. Question Tiy same Was tho robbery committed in the ollico, and did you see tho person you have mentioned, pass from the office to the silting room across the hall which separates them ? Answor Tho robbery waa romnutted in (he office, and I did see the person I have mentioned cross the hall between thoin, from Uie office to Uie sitting room. Question hy Bame Was the sitting room one of the private aparlmenla occupied at Uiat time by Mr. Van Hook? NUMBER 34. Answer It was. Question by same How was the narsnn vnn US' cross the hull clad? Answer He woe in his shirt and nantalnnns nil I Uiink in his stocking feet? iiuesuon by same Had you any doubt at tha time, or have you now, who it was ? Answer 1 had not Question by same Did you then, and do you still believe, it was Mr. Van Hook? Answer I did, and do. Question by sums Are you sure Mr. Vsn Hook was near enough lo have hoard the conversation von have menuoned, between youreelf and Belford ? Answer l aia Quesiion by same Did ho leave tho apartment immediately after hearintr Uiat statement made by you to Belford ? Answer He did. Question Did he ever after mention that ennver. . aalion to you ? Answer He did not Question by Mr. Spalding When did Mr. Huff man first tell vou Uiat Mr. Van Hook suspected vou of committing Uiat robbery ? Answer I think in last June, during the first investigation ; that was the first I ever heard of it Question by same Was the front door open when you approached the house that morning f Answer It was : they were folding doors, and ono half open. Question by same Was the safe in the front or Uie back office ? Answer In Uie back office. Question bv same Did vou see the man enms from the front ollice or back office in tho ailting room ? Answer I did net see him como from either office. He was in Uie set of stepping into the silltintr room. apparently as if he hud crossed the hall. Question by same Where did you stand when you sow hun ? Answer 1 was just cominir in at the front door. R. S. Bkelsforii, snya Queation by Mr. Swayne Were you in the office of the Penitentiary early in Uie morning after the urawcr was broken open and the sato robbed ? If so, was thero a conversation Uiere at Uiat time between yourself and Wiley 8. Bailey ? Answer There was no conversation between mv. self and Bailey on Uie next morning. I heard Bai ley suy mat morning, in the olhce, that he had seen a man pass from the front office door in the parlor across the pussage, that morning, as he came in. I supposed Uiat ho was addressing himself to Mr. Van Hook, as he looked towards him when he made tho remark. There were a number of persons present at the time. Question by same was Mr. Van Hook near enough to havo heard him? Answer 1 should Uiink he was. He was full as near as I was. Question by snme Did Mr. Van Hook make any reply ; if so, whut was it ? Answer llo did not that I recollect of. Ho walked out, I. Ihink, directly afterwards. Ho waa only part dressed at Uie time. Question hy Bame Did you examine the ground near the window immediately after Uie robbery waa discovered ? Answer I went out shortly after the robbery waa discovered, and did not see any tracks. Question oy same Who were present at that ex amination of the ground ? Answer -1 hero were others, but who they were. I cannot say. 1 Uiink Mr. Van Hook was not present Peter Hatpe.i. Question by Mr. Spalding Do vou recollect be ing at the Penitentiary the morning after tho safe was said to have been robbed ; and if so, did you go into the yard with Mr. Van Hook, to examine whether there was sny tracks near tho window supposed to have been robbed ? State what you discovered, and whether Mr. Van Hook, in your presence, measured Uie tracks? Answer I was thero the next morning, between eight and ninu o'clock in tho morning. I examined Ihe window myself, and found that it waa not fastened. and lhat it wns not the practice to fasten it When I went into the ollico, Uiey were talking about Uio robbery, and it was suggested by some of them that Uie robbor had entered the window. Mr. Van Hook amino for tracks. We found quite a number of tracks in stocking feet and one waa quite plain, and appeared to step into me water sill of Uie building. This track upon the water sill was where a person wouiu naiurauy nave to go to get into Uie house through the window. I supposed at the time thoso tracks were made by the person or persona who had robbed Uie ollice the night previous, and I hoard no other opinion expressed at Uie time. I don't know that there waa any rule used at the time, or Uiat Mr. Van llook measure any of the tracks, I don't think he did while 1 was Uiere. Question bv Mr. Swavne Who went round with you and Mr. Van Hook? Answer I cannot tell who it was, and am not pos itive that there was any ono. Question by Bame Abuut what time did you make the examination ? Answer Aftor breakfast : I should think between eight and nino o'clock, and nearer nine than eight Question oy same Did you nnd tracks under the window which had been made by thoae who had pivtiuuBiy cAnmiuvu uio gruunu r Answer Anere were iracas around mere, maoo by shoes, not exactly under the window, which did not excite my suspicion, which I supposed had been made by thoso who had previously exsmined. Question by same Was any thin? aaid in the of fice before you went out to make Uie examination about Ihe stocking tracks under Uie window, or the track on the water table ? Answer I do not recollect that there waa any think said about the stocking tracks. There waa considerable confusion, and a good deal aaid, and all appeared to agree Uiat tho robber had entered by the window. I supposod Uiat Uioy had previously examined, aa Uiere were many tracks around which did not excite any suspicion, and were not examined by .11 r. van llook or myaelt, as being the tracks ot Uie robber. The undersigned will not say that the tcslii..iny fixes the commission of Uie robbery upon any one ; nevertheless, it suggests some remarka which be feels bound to make. The ground under the window which was suppos ed to have been entered, was soft Nu ono could approach Uie window without leaving hie footprints. An examination ol Ihe ground and window was made early the next morning, immediately after the robbery waa discovered. There were then no footmarks and no indications lhat Uie window had been entered. Mr. Van Hook took Mr. Hayden out between eight and nine o'clock Uiat morning, and with him examined the ground. Footmarks were then visible, and there was then dirt on Uie water tablo, as if it had been left Uiere by some ono climbinir in at the win dow. Mr. Bailey, a witness, of ummpeached character, saw Mr. Van Hook half dressed and in hia Blocking feet, run across the hall from the office very cany mat morning, immediately alter the rubbery waa discovered, ho atsted in Uie hearing of Mr, Van llook, that he had seena man, (without naming him,) under those circumstances. Mr. Van llook made no reply, hut immediately left the office. Two or three days afterwards he endoavored secretly to direct the suspicions of Mr. Hullinan, the deputy warden, to .nr. iiaiiey as me robber, mere is no evidence mat in any of Uie conversations about the robbery, he ev er once adverted to Uie fact stated by Bailey. When Bailey waa testifying before the committee, Mr. Van Hook admitted that he was the person seen by him in the hall that morning. Aa far as Uie committee are informed, Mr. Van llook has never attempted UT explain this mysterious fact it remains wholly unexplained to this day. It is certain Uie robbery waa committed by some one well acquainted with all Uie localities of Uie of- nee. 1 his is s painuil subject, and Uie undersigned will comment upon it no furUier. 1 tie testimony discloses a number of other petty Mtciilnlinna deserving reprehension. They are, however, eclipsed in importance by thoso which have been considered. If the testimony bo believod, enough has been already shown for evory purpose. Tho undorsigned will therefore merely mention three ' of (hem without further remark. It appears that Mr. Van llook made use of his of ficial station to induce Mr. Pinney, a large contractor at tho orison, to irive him an account which he owed him, receipted, amounting to about $120, with out any equivalent (See 1'inney a deposition belore Uie ilirectora, Ho sold a considerable quantity of apoiled meat belonging to the prison to Mr. Aston, a soap chandler. During the investigation made by the directors he requested Mr. Pinney, who waa aware of Uie fact, not to disclose it- -w - Upon ono ecca-ion lie took all the host rie.-es of a litriro nimmitw of h.-rtf which hkit tiecn hollfrKt tor , Fr 1 . ' . . r - - tno prison, u wnt em op auu cw"g uve 1 , of the State. He consumed a ptu of thut i t M !,n " took and sold the residue, charn;; rturw-if on the books of tlio prison wiih only it;- of the whok- 111 a green Stale. See Martin Vt hilo s fle)rsnion. Mr. Van Hook subnullcd to tin couiuutuio a writ-

WEEK LI 0 TATE) JOURNA 10 VOLUME XXXIII. I'UBUSHJiU BVEKV WED.NKSDAV, BV IIIAHI.KH BMUOTT. Office comer of High (uid Town iUccia, JJuldes' Building. . TERMS. TnitEE Dollars Fkr annum, which may be discharged by the payment of Two Dollars and Fifty Cents in advance, at the ollice. Tlio Journal is alio published daily during the session o the Legislature and thrice a week the remainder of the year for i and three tunes a week, yearly, fr t. The Penitentiary Investigation. IM-HOHITY HKI'OBT. HOUSE OF IIEPRKHENTATIVEM, March 13, 1018. Ma. Woopbridoe, from the minority of the joint elect commiltee, to winch the subject was referred, mode tlio following REPORT! The undersigned, a moinbor of the joint select committee appointed "to investigate the official conduct of William I). Van Hook, while acting in the capacity of Warden of the Ohio Penitentiary, and the causes which led to his removal from oifice." &.C., finding himself unublo to concur in the conclusions at which the other two members of the committee have arrived, respectfully submits the following minority report. The testimony taken by the committee covers 184 pages of large folio paper The Legislature will adjourn on Monday next. The undersigned was not a-woro, until within a few days, that it would be necessary for him to submit a separate report. The chairman nf the committee needed the testimony until last Monday night, to enable him to prepare the report o, .1.- ..'.I... Tt I... 1 aln.a tl.nl tima haan in f l,& IIIO Ill'lJUIIvy IK una urn - diih,-, uiuo un, n possession of the undersigned, and he has other engagements, in the hurry of the close of the session, that cannot bo deferred. These considerations will compel htm to be brief, and to pass in silence over many matters, both of fuct and inference, to which otherwise, he would have folt it his duty to advert at somo length. If, however, from these circumstances, time be wanting for a full discussion ofilio various topics embraced in the testimony, he feels no apprehension that, even in the limited tune he can devote to the subject, he will be unable to make his conclusions, and the leading facts by which he has been conducted to thorn, clearly intelligible. There is neither discrepancy nor contrariety iii the testimony. Though voluminous, it displuys, with transparent cleurnoss, the facts winch it discloses. The only question, as the undersigned believes, is as to the credibility of the witnesses. If they are worthy of belief, Mr. Van-Hook cannot be innocent. The evidence is stronger gainst him since, than it was Ifore this investigation. He produced a great number of witnesses before the committee, but not one nf litem testified aught against tho character of either ofthoadverso witnesses. This is a remarkable fact in the case, and deserves attention. The cross examination to which the principal witnesses against htm were subjected, was extremely elaborate, it was conducted without limitation or restraint as to tho time or topics. Its effect, in every instance, was only to bring out more fully, and strikingly to confirm, the facts previously stated. It removed all doubt if any before existed, of the truth and candor of the witnesses. Tho niost iiiqiurtaut testimony against Mr. Van llook is that of Richard Jeffries. Ills character is fully sustained by the wit-cesses examined upon that subject- Farther lesii-tnony to the samo effect, from a large number of the most respectable citizens of Columbus, wus tendered at the close of the investigation. The committee declined to receive it, and assigned as the reason that his character already stood fair before them, and needed no farther support-After as careful a review of tho testimony as the time would permit, tho undersigned has been able to perceive no reason, whatever, to distrust the truth of any of the witnesses. It is cheerfully conceded, that until the facts to which the investigation relates came to light, Mr. Van Hook sustained a fair character. Nevertheless, if the testimony taken by the committee be tnie, howevor painful it may be to despoil a good name, or to cast additional shades Uon a bad one, in this instance there is no alternative. If perjury has not been committed by more than one of the witnesses, Mr. Van Hook is guilty of all the charges alleilged against him previous lo tho investigation. This opinion is not a matter of choice with the undersigned, nor the result of prejudice. He would greatly have preferred to concur in the views of the majority. His convictions have been forced upon him by the evidence He has found its cfiect inevitable nd irresi-ttiblo. His conclusions are the result of a moral necessity, which ho could not control. llefore proceeding to examine tho testimony with reference to the scvcrul charges, it is deemed proper to pause for a moment, and revert to the history of tho subject, from the beginmg of the inquiry down to the commencement of this investigation. It appears that the facta charged, or most of them, first reached tho public ear in the spring of 1812. Rumors then became rife, that Mr. Van Hook had, in various instances, been guilty of gross fraud and peculation. Public opinion compelled the directors to make an investigation. Mr. Von Hook was nolo-lied of their purpose. Tho investigation was gono into. He was present during a greater part of tho time, and cross examined several of the witnesses. I Iml ho chosen, ho might have been present during the whole time. Tho following facts wore proved : that he had, in various instances, secretly purloined money from the visitor's box : tint he had defrauded the State out of (large amount of pork raised at the prison ; a part of it he had consumed himself, and the rest ho had charged to the citato ; that ho had appropriated to himself two bolts of cotton cloth bo-longing to the State, falsely pretending that he had bought and paid fur it himself; and, lastly, that he collected dues to the State in depreciated puier, compelling those of whom it was received to pay a premium sufficient tn make it equal to specie funds, and that he hail paid over the depreciated paper to the State as of par value, and pocketed the premium himself, without rendering any account of it. The proof was uncontradicted, and, seeminly, conclusive. He was invited to havo counsel present, mid lo produce witnesses in his behalf. He did neither, llo made no elfin In defend himself, except by cross examining some of tho witnesses, llo did not propose then, nor at any future period to vindicate himself, and gave no reasons for not taking stcs nbviously so important to his character. A majority, if not all the directors woro his friends. He was told that if ha could rebut, or satisfactorily explain, the evidence aga fiat him, ho would be retained in bis office but that, otherwise, the directors would be compelled to dischargo him. He still made neither ttllcr nor cllbrt tu disprove the charges. The directors finally removed him. He then requested to be allowed to remain a month longer. He also appealed, with repeated tears, to tho sympathies of the directors, fur himself and his family, and besought them tn give him a certificate that would soothe and relieve the feelings of the hater. It was understood that if given, it should not go upon the books of the institution, Mr. Van llook promised to hold it as1 private paper," and to exhibit It only to Ins lumiiy and particular friends. Overcome by his entreaties and tears, and their own sympathies, thus wrought tqion, the directors gavo limi such a poior. It wus ffuardcdlv written. It anoko in terms ul commenda tion of his general administration of tho affairs of tho prison, but was carclully silent as to nis integrity, lus honesty, and his character. Notwithstanding tlio assurances upon which tins paper was given, it was forthwith publicly exhibited by Mr. van noon, ai stultifying and inculpating the directors, and falsify. ing all the alledged grounds of his removal. These facts are all clearly proven by tha testimony of the directors. Can there be any dilforence of opinion as to his conduct in regard to tho investigation and to Uiis certificate ? Was il that of an honest or innocent man? To the mind of tho undersigned, it throws a strong light upon the character of Mr. Van llook, and shows clearly his own consciousness of the predicament in which he stood, and of tho truth of the chatgoa upon which tlis directors acted in removing him. He was willing to meet by art, management, and indirection, what ho dared not to confront and openly encouuter. At tho extra session in July last, alter a considerable struggle, a resolution was passed by tho Senate, which drew forth, for the first time, the testimony taken by the directors. Mr. Van Hook thereiiion requested an investigation by a cotnniitteo appointed by thn Legislature. This request was not acceded to. Tho testimnoy was extensively republished in the nowepapcr press, and produced much remark and excitement. At the present session, Mr. Van Hook renewed hit request for a further investigation, and the appointment and action of tins committeo is the result. Tha resolution, under which tho committeo have acted, seems to emhraco the conduct of tho Directors, in regard tn Mr. Van Hook, as well as that of Mr. Van Hook himself. It is, therefore, the duty of tho committeo to express an opinion upon the former subject, as well as the latter, it is doomod proper hero to consider that question. The courso of the directors towards Mr. van Hook, during the invotli- Salion, was all that ho could havo asked. Tho evi-enra fully warranted his removal. They could not havo done otherwise, without receiving tho pointed condemnation of (very honest man acquainted wiLh the facts before them. Upon this subject the committee are unanimous in their views. They acquit the directors of all blame, and award them their decided commendation. Tho evidence will now be presented in connection with tho charges, respectively to which it relates. 1 Purloining money from the Vititori box. Richard Jeffries I am Clerk of the Ohio Penitentiary, and have acted as such, since the 1st of February, 1840. Boon after I commenced my duties as Uerk, 1 several tunes thought 1 missed money from the Visitor's Box. On the 21st and 22d of February, 18)0, Mr. Van Hook received money from visitors and rendered no account of the same tho amount I am not able to state. I saw him receive it, and kept the account of the visitors' fund, and know that it was never entered, If Mr. Van Hook had paid that money in, I certainly would have known it, for I counted that fund. Upon one occasion, when I counted the funds of the institution, to balance the cash account, there were four dollars missing. Mr. Van Hook came in at the time 1 was counting it. Mr. V. H. hud gone up stairs and came down in his stocking feet, and inquired of me if my cash account came out right ; I told hiot it did not exactly balunce, but wou!d cuunt it over again, which I did, with the same results, it falling short four dollars. In the morning, Mr. V. II. went to town, and as soon as he returned I informed him that there were four dollars missing out of the funds, and asked him if he knew any thing about it ? Ho stated that he did not 1 told him I was not in the habit of making such mistakes. He said that Mr. Mills, the former Clerk, frequently made such mistukes, or some language to that effect He told me to make up the deficiency out of the visitors' fund, and say nothing about it; which I did as he directed. Soon after that, I missed funds out of the Visitors' Box. I never left tho ollice to go any place, without leaving Mr, Van llook there, or informing the guard that I was going. I havo several times taken all the money out of the Visitors' Box, except a one dollar bill mid some change, and in my absence that would be taken out, 1 frequently used this pre caution with the same results. Mr. Van Hook had a key to that box as well as myself. I frequently niquircu oi me guaiu who nau ueeu in tnu uiuce, he stated that noono had been but Mr. Van Hook, I did not make any inquiries of the guard until I was satisfied that money had been taken. In November of the same year, (1840,) some person broke open the drawer that the key of the safe was kept in, and unlocked the safe and stole nil the money that was then in tho safe. The Visitors' Box was also broken open, and the lock Bpoilcd. We had to get another box made, and another, lock also, to which thero was but one key, I did not miss any money for some time after that I went on a visit to my friends in Fair, field county, the keys and all were delivered to Mr. Vun Hook, when I went away. Snonufter 1 returned, I found the snme old game going on. I talked with tho guard stationed in the guard room, and stated to him what was going on in tho office, thul money had been missing very Irequently, and 1 was determined 1 would find out who was tutting it, mid directed him to watch every one that came in tho office, nnd he said he would do so. Some time after this, Mr. Van Hook sent me to town for his letters and pajiers ; before I started, I went into the guurd room and told Mr. Christ that I was going up town, and said to him that I wanted he should keep a Bharp lookout. 1 was gone but a short tunc : when 1 re turned, Mr. Christ informed me that Mr. Van Ilouk had been into the Visitors' Box, and also tho sale. .Mr. Van Hook left I he ollice soon alter I returned; I opened the Visitors' Box, and also the safe, and found that there was five dollars missing out of the visitors' fund in the safe. Mr. Van Hook would send me awny, and when I returned, ho would any thut I ought to leave the key of tho Visitors' Dox, so that he could mako change. On one occasion, while I was sitting in the guard room, 1 saw Mr. Van llook passing into the ollice; I heard something crack, us though it was the spring of the lock of the Visitors' llox ; I stepped to tho window nnd saw Air. van Hook havo the box open ; when I started from tho wimlow, I heard the lid of tho Visitors' Box cIobo; when I went in, Mr. Van Hook was standing by the tiro place with a paper in his hand; dinner being reaily, Mr. Van Hook left the ollice. I went to the Visitors' Mox to see il anv inonev hud been taken. and found the box unlocked. I do not know whether there was biiv money missing or not ; I could not tell. I was satisfied that Mr. Vun Hook had a key, and kept it secretly. I had no means of ascertaining Uie exact amount that was taken in those two years. 1 think the amount would bo some lifty or sixty dollura, and pcrhajis more. question dv it. r cipatding, r.sq., .tlr. Van Hook's counsel,) Had Mr. Van Hook not a right, as Warden, to keep a key to tho Visitor's Box ? Answer He had a right to keep a key, but I con tend he had no right to keep it secretly. Question by the Bamo How public should he have mudo it ? Answer Ho should not have denied to mo of having a key. Question by the same Did Mr. Van Hook tell you a falsehood about the key, and if bo, under what circitmstunces ? Answer He had said to me, frequently, that ho had no key, and I saw him huve tho Visitor's Box open. Jons IIurrMAH Question by Mr. Swayno Do you remember to have had a conversation with Mr. Jeffries, about the 22d of February, 1840, in regard to the money received from visitors, on that or the succeeding day ? Answer A short time after the hurry was over, Mr. Jeffries informed me that ho had taken in about $:100, or a little ovor, and ho also told me, that Mr. Van Hook had taken in some, and that ho had not got it yet J mix S. Christ In 1810 I took charge of tho guard room, some time in September. Shortly after, on Mr. Jellries leaving the ollice, ho directed ine to pay attention to it ; and, frequently, on his return, he would ask mo if any person hail been in tho otlicc. I replied, no one, except Mr. Van Hook. It passed on until, probably, the last of July, or first of August, 1841, at which timo Mr. Jellries informed me that ha had frequently missed money from the visitor's box in tho ollice; and he directed mo to pay particular attentiun to every one that went into the ollice, nono excepted. I told him I would. Ill a few days after Mr. Jelfries camo to the guard room where I was and told mo that Mr. Van Hook wanted him to go up to the Post Ollice, after some letters and papers; ho also stated that he wanted mo to keep shurp look out, that he expected there would bo something going on in tho office. Shortly after he left, or by the time ha was clearly nut of sight, I saw Mr. Van llook start tn go up stairs. I le camo down in a minute or two, and walked to the front door, and looked out. He camo back to tho guard room door. After looking into the guard room, ho left that, ami went back to tho ollico, walked in to tho desk, whero the visitor's box was, when I stepetl on tho slejw of the guard room, 1 saw Mr. Van Hook unlock and open the visitor's box. When Mr. Jelfries returned, 1 heard Mr. Vun Hook suy to him, that when hu went nwuy he ought to leave the key to tho visitor's box, bo that ho could make clianuo, in caso any visitors should como, A few moments before, Mr. Van llook had been into the visitor's box. I saw Mr. Van Hook walk towurds the corner where the sufu stands. I saw him stoop down, and heard tho apring of the bolt of tho safe. When Mr. Jelfries returned, ho informed me tint fivo dollars were missing out of the safe. II Jit lo the Cotton. A. B. Christ On or about tho 4th of April, 1810, thero was a lot of muslin arrived at tho prison, for the use of the prison, and I had it taken up into tha tailor and shoe shop, which shops I had charge of at that time. I had the bales opened ; I took a piece of paper and pencil, and act down the number of vanls that was marked nn osrli ninen , I hitd ihAmit.. tin sent into a room thut wns kept for this purpose. I then went to the desk and added up tho number of yards ; 1 found it was Uit.1 yards, I thon set down in a book Iho number of ynrds which was kept fir that purpose, and other things which I choso to put on that book, such as clothing made for tho prisun, A:c I then took pen and ink, and a small niece of paper and Bot down the whole number of yards, ItsKi, and put it into my pocket to carry It to the ollice thut evening to compare it with the bill ; a few hours after I had the muslin opened and taken into the room, Mr. Van Hook came into the shop, end asked mo if tho muslin was up in the room ; 1 told him it was; he anid ho would go up and look at it, and did so and returned in a short timo, probably ten minutes and informed me that he ihougnt it tho cheapest and best lot of muslin that was ever bought for tho pris on. 1 told him I thought it was good, stout mushn, and cheap. He then left the shop, and in a few days, aftor, returned and said, Mr. Christ, there is two pieces of that muslin belonging to me, that I bought lor, my own use, and, oayB he, it is something finer than tho rest I think the pieces havo my name on them, did you soo any of them ? I answered no, that I had not Been t piece or pieces with his namo op; he said it was two pieces that ho had bought expressly for his own use, it was something finer than the rest llo then said that he would go up into tho room and seo whether he could find it ; ho was there a short lima, and returned from the room, and informed mo that he found the two pieces with his namo on, and had laid them one side, he said that he would send up for them ; when I told him at the time, that i could send it down to him. He said I need not mind, that he would send up for them ; ho then left the shop. I then went up into the room and found tho two pieces laid one side with tho letters V. II. marked on each pieco, with red chalk. I compared the muslin to see if I could discover any ditlerence, and I found that there was no ditlerence that I could discover, with the pieces that I compared with. I then took the number of yards that was marked on each of the two pieces, and added it together, which made 53 or 54 yards, I am not positive which. I then set the number of yards down, undor the 11139 yards, bo as to show that 53 or 54 yards belonged to Mr. Van Hook, and how much belonged to the State. Three or four days after that, the pieces of muslin were sent fur, and they woro taken out of the shop, to Mr. Van llook, who, I suppose, sent for them. This piece of paper which I put into my pocket, intending to compare with the bill. I found the clerk busy that evening, receiving reports, and so it was not compared that evening. A few days after thut 1 offered it tn the clerk, and he then said he was busy and could not look at the bill then, and said that some other time would answer as well. I carried that piece of paper some tour or five days and lost it, and thought no more about it until some time after I left the prison, which was in May, 1841. Some time after that, I do not know how long, I heard nf Mr. Van Hook's misconduct about a number of things, I then related tho circumstance of the muslin, to a particular friend of mine, Thomas Stitt, and told him that when I would return to the prison sometime, 1 would go to the book and get the number ol yards, and tako it to the ollico to have it compared with the bill, which I did in the month of April, I think, 1842; and I found that the Slate had paid for 1030 yards. I then asked the clerk if Mr. Van llook had been charged with 53 or 54 yards of muslin. Ho looked and answered mo, he had not I then related the circumstance to the clerk. Amprew H. Patterson, (one of the directors.) Question by Mr. Swayne Do you know what considerations induced Mr. Van Hook to reduce one of the credits on his privato account for pork, by making an alteration in the book, and tn cause himself to be charged with "52 or 53 yards of muslin" which he had previously got, and if so, please state tkciu, and stntc, in addition, every thing within your hnowledgc, muterial to a full understanding of his conduct to regard to those mutters ? I received a lino from the other directors, saying that I must come hero to assist in an investigation, und accordingly, I came to Columbus; tins was about the 0th or lOih of June, 1842, or thereabouts ; and again met with Mr. Van Hook, and told him that I had come here for the purpose of holding an investigation in relation to tho charges against him, and nguin Sioke of the pork, and also named the charge in relation to the muslin. I think 1 named other charges to him ; at the same time I told him nf all the charges I had heard, against him. Mr. Vun Hook replied that ho was perfectly willing that an investigation should be gone into, und that we would liud that tho account had been made right In this consultation, Mr. Vun Hook referred particularly to the two items, to wit : tho pork and muslin. The alteration, as to the pork item, and the onlry as to tho muslin, wore made on tho books between the time of the first conversation above mentioned, nnd the first time I ever saw the books, which was during the in vestigation. Question bv same Did ho at onv time, durinrr the investigation, endeavor to establish the fuct that he had had it (me muslin,) taken to his own apartments, merely to be made up for the prisoners ? Answer lie asked one of tho witnesses if it had not been customary with Mr. Medbery, to havo clothing made up in the house, for the use of the prison. and ho stated ho could prove by a lady then in the nouse, wnom ne snouiu decline calling, thut such hud been the custom. Question by same Did you understand him as conveying thn idea that such wus the fact in regard to me tnusiin in question t Answer In the first instance, he did, but did hot insist upon it Tho testimony of tho witness, was, that he had no knowledge that such hud ever been the custom. Wi. Si-escer, (one of tho directors.) Question bv Mr. Swnvne Have vnu read Mr. Patterson's testimony upon his reexamination, relative to the course of Mr. Van Hook, during the investigation, in regard to the 53 yards of muslin? Answer i nave. Question by same Does vour recollection of the facts, testified to by him, agree with his statement ? Answer it docs. Question by same Did Mr. Van Hook manifest a disposition to catch at or avail himself of the suggestion that tho muslin had been taken into his house, merely to be mudo up for the prisoners until that idea was rebutted by the testimony ? Answer ir Van Hook did appear as though the fact had inst occurred to him. thut such wns tho case. and stated that it was customary so to do. Question by same When did it appear Mr. Vun Hook had hail himself charged with tint muslin ? Answer According to mv recollection, a short timo, soy a week or ten days before the investigation. Utiostion by same What etatcnionl did he make in rcgurd to the muslin ? Answor llo insisted that the muslin belonged to him, thut ho had bought it for himself. Question by same Did he trivo anv reason for having it charged to himself before the investigation ? Answer i uo not recollect tuut ho did. RiciiARo Jeffries, Question bv Sir. Swnvne Will vou examine tho book, and stato when the item nf 5 J yards of muslin wns charged to Mr. Van Hook ? Answer I do not know; he came in and told mo. and I entered it without date, but 1 think it was in June. Question by same What is the date of tho entrv next preceding it? Answer May HI, 1842. Ill J lo Pork. Nathaniel Mepdery. Question by Mr. Swayno How many hogs did you leave at the penitentiary, belonging to the State, when Mr. Van llook succeeded vou there as warden ? Answer I cannot now recollect the exact number. should say, from my best recollection, from forty to sixty, of all sites. Question by same Did vou, prior to leaving the prison, give those hogs, or any of them, to Mr. Van HOOK f Answer I did not. Question bv samo Did vou. at anv time, visit tho nog pen wan Mr. van llook I Answer 1 do not recollect of having dono so. Question by sumo Would vou not recollect it if you nud .' Answer My impression is that I should. Question by same did vou at anv tune, before or after leaving the prison, say any thing to Mr, Van Honk, from which he could infer that you gavo him all tho hogs at the prison ? Answer 1 should say that nothing occurred be tween us, from which any such inference could be drawn. In the first place, tho hogs belonged to tho institution, and could not huvo been girrn away by mo. I considered them worth, to the orison, i'rom two to threo hundred dollars annually. If they M beiunged to ine, i certainly should not have given them away, as I could readily have sold them. question by same When did the Itrst conversa tion between Mr. Van Hook and vnursolt occur, in which any of tho hogs at the prison were mentioned ? and what was said in that conversation? Answer soon after leaving the charge of tho pris on, (in June, 1831M I went oast, and was out ot the State, until the latter part nf September following, at which timo 1 returned. It hud beon mv practice to keep four or fivo hogs of my own ; at tho timo of leaving me institution, 1 lorgot to mention, or many way disKise of tho hogs belonging lo me. On my return, the subject occurred to me, and observed to Mr. Van llook that I was the owner of some four or fivo hogs, (am not positive whether four or five ;) that I hud forgotten to mention or have them included with other things (furniture) that I had sold him ; and that all I would then churi'n him for, was, that ho might furnish me with a barrel of pork the next winter oeing worm snout one halt wnat 1 considered the hogs worth. This proioaition was acceded to, and accordingly l got the barrel ol pork. Question by samo Did you, at any time, ssy to ,Yir. Van llook that you did not consider yoursell pla ced at tho prison to raise hogs for the Stato of Ohio; nnd that your practice had been to lake Irom the hogs thoro, what pork yon wanted for your own use, and tn give tho State tho residue; or anything to that al loc If Answer No such conversation, or anything like it ever occurred betweenMr. Van Hook and myself. Question by Mr. Spalding Did you havo any con vorsalion with Mr. Van llook, in relation to the hogs at tho prison, whether belonging to the State or your self, previous to your return Irom the east, in the latter part of September ? Answer None that I recollect of. Question by Bamo May you not havo had a conversation with him on that subject, and hove forgot toll tno circumstance .' COLUMBUS, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1843. Answer Such a thing is barelv possible, but as I have before stated, I have not tho remotest recollection of any conversation on the subject ; and stuta decidedly, from my best recollection, that no conver sation or explanation took place in regard to the hogs, previous to my leaving uie prison. Question by Mr. bwayne When vou told Mr. Van Hook, after your return from the east that "four or five" of the hogs at the prison belonged to you, did ne claim, or intimate, mat you had given htm the hogs there, or any part of them? Answer 1 certainly havo no recollection of any such claim or intimation having been made by Mr. van noon. Marti White. Question by Committeo State, if vou know nf nny fraudulent or dishonost conduct, on the part of Win. 11. van liooK.as warden ol thoUhio feiuten- tiary ? Answer In the fall of 1839 I woa put in tlis kitchen, to take charge of the affairs thero. A short time after that, I was ordered to slaughter some hogs ; after they wore slaughtered, Mr, Van Hook came to ine and told me there was t certain quantity to go to Mr. Medbcrry, and gave me direction how to put up tho balance ; three barrels were tn be up tor the State, and credited to him. Ho gave me a small dook, when 1 went into the Kitchen, to keep his own accounts upon, and charged me very particularly, if there was any thing got out of the kitchen for him, to put it down in this book, but not to put any price to it as ho knew the prices better than 1 did, but told me to Keep an exact account of tho weizhl or mea sure, as the case might be. I do not recollect the number of hogs sluoghtered in the full or 1831); but think, about six or eight In the winter of 1840-4 1, there was hogs killed at three dull-rent limes, at.d the pork all credited to Mr. Van Hook, with the exception of four barrels, which were put up for Mr. van hook, tor nis own use, without any credit or charge. A. McLlvaipc (one of the directors.) Question bv Mr. Snaldinir Vou have said that the directors, upon examinatinn of the prison, found the discipline to be good; the books and vouchers correct ; tho contracts thon existing taken on terms favorable to the State; but that the directors did not think tho private account of Mr. Van llook was correct; please to state, specifically, wherein thut private account was incorrect Answer 1 considered, from an examination of his private account and from the kitchen book, that an alteration had been made of two thousand pounds of pork, in nno place, in that account and that ho was cliargouble, in that account, lor pork he hud got, which hud not been charged. Question by Mr. Swavno do vou know when tho alteration in the private account of which you have spoken, was made ? Answer It appeared that it was mode a short timo before the investigation, perhaps a month or so i do not Know exactly nt wnat time it was made. Question by same Wus it made alter Mr. Van Hook had been apprised that he was charged with appropriating to his own use pork belonging to the State, and that an investigation was about to be made in regard to that and the other matters against mm r Answer Il was made after there woro rumors out that there were things wrong at the prison; but I do noiKhow whether Mr. Van llook bad been lulormod that there would be an investigation or not. Question by tho same Did it appear that the clerk who had charge of the book had been consulted about such alteration, or was apprised of it, at the time it was made? Answer I do not know as to that, but there was a very angry feeling between them about it Question by same Were there other credits on the books, to Mr. Vun Hook, for pork, to which it ap-cured ho was not entitled ? Answer llicro wus. Question by same Were any of those credits stricken out or altered ? Answer They were not Question by same Was that tho reason it became necessary to chargo M.Vau Hook with the sum of 111 115, in order to make that part ofhis account correct?Answer It was. Question by same After the investirution. did Mr. Van Hook admit that the charge of 141 1)5. on account of pork, was correct: and did ho settle that Hem without objection f Answer I understood he was satisfied, and the account was closed that way. Question by same Were the directors unanimous in charging him with thutsmounton account of pork, which they thought ne had improperly taken credit fur? Answer They were, W. Spe.ocer. Question by Mr. Swavne Did you make the cal culation which resulted in charging Mr. Vun llook in his private account after Uie investigation with the sumot (till US for pork? Answer I did. Question by samo After thn investigation was closed, did he dispute the correctness of that charge? Answer- -lie did not. Question by samo Did he settlo and account lo the State for that item of the account, after the charge was made t Answer He did; that was included in his account in closing the settlement Question by Mr. Spalding rrom what dala did you make up the charge of $141 llongainstMr. Van llook, for error in pork from the kitchen book, tho running account book, or Doth r Answer The chargo of $141 05 was made up of threo different items ; one, on the kitchen book for pork, passed to the credit of CoL Van llook, amounting to $71 CO. The two others stand credited on the running account book, one for pork, amounting to !?53 01 ; and the other, also, for pork, 837 pounds at two cents per pound, amouotinglo$Ul 74; the foregoing items amuunt to a few cents more than Iho charge made against Mr. Van llook, which discrepancy was owing to an error in adding up the amount at tlio timo the chargo was made. There are other items ot pork that appear on the kitchen books, which was not satisfactorily explained, and, consequently, no account was taken of it It wna tho design of the directors to chargo him with all the pork which had been passed to his credit, from the hogs fattened nt the Penitentiary, and belonging to the Stato. Wo considered that all tlio hogs fattened there, belonged to tho citato. Andrew II. Patterson tn the latler part of May, I mot with Mr. Van Hook in Columbus, and told him of some charges that were made against him, in relation to some pork, and ho replied, tlio pork was from some hogs given him ly Mr. Medbery, former warden. R. Jeffries, Question by Mr. Spalding At what timo was the nlterutit.n made by Mr. Van Hook, in the credit of 2000 pounds of pork in his private account ? Answer I think it was in May, irn Quesiion hy same Did you not strenuously resist that alteration? and did not the perseverance of .Mr. Van llook, in striking out Uie '.fit "J pounds pre viously credited lo him, occasion much bitterness of feeling, and call forth threuts on your part, that you would ruin, or seriously injure bun ? Answer When the account of the pork came in from tho kitchen, Mr. Van Hik camo in and inquired of mo, for his little bonk, he wanted to see if Mr. White had given him credit for all his pork; 1 han ded loin his book ; ho examined the 2837 pounds, and stated that it woa (85 Ii5 for provisions ; he stated that he wanted nie tn deduct tho amount of tlio pork, which was $."0 5, and charge bun with the balance, stating to bill of provisions as per kitchen book ;' because I entered it plain upon the books, charging him tho $85 115 and crediting him with $Csi 74 ; he fell out with ine and stated that I must do as he ordered me, and was very angry about it. This was probably on tho first of April, lr!l2. Sometime after that he camo in and referred to his account and wanted me to alter ono half of tho amount I asked him if it wna not right; ho staled it was, but the directors might think it loo much, I told him I could not alter it, inasmuch as he had abused me for entering it tho wav I did. I told him he could alter it as well as 1 could, and he took the book and altered it, taking olf '2000 pounds, and threatened to discharge me. Question by Mr. Swayne Do Mr. Van Honk's credits for pork, in his private account, show tho whole amount of credits he received for pork ? Answer They do not; ho was charged on tho kitchen book for provisions, and creditrdfor pork; Iho ono was deducted from the other, and tho balance was entered into Uie running account book the pork was deducted from the bill for provisions; the bill for provisions was generally the largest, and the balance was entered to his debit in the private account Question by same Will you give en instance of this kind from tho privato account, in Ilia running account book, before you, and stale the particulars of tlio process by which the result, in Uiat instance, was arrived at ? Answer In Mr. Van Hook's privato account, is this entry, "June ,10th, 1841 : To hill of provisions as per account, kitchen book, $47 fill ;" the bill of provisions amounted to (II!) ltl ho had a credit for 2.070 nounds of pork, makiop 4171 fin. which is ile. ducted from the $110 10 and leaves the balance $17 50, which is entered as above stated. Question by same Why was not tho whole amount ot me pork credits, tec, entered in the run ning account book? Answer Because Mr. Van Hook ordered me to make the entry that way. Question by same What reasons did Mr, Van llook assign for giving you such orders ? Answer He said that I had nothing to do with nis nine book, except making Uie entries, as he di reeled me, on the running account book. Question by same How long did you continue to maKo entries in thai wav .' Answer Until March 13, m Question by Bame- Was that entry made in full, with the consent, or by tho direction of Mr, Van Hook? Answer It was not. Question by same Why was it so mado ? Answer Because I heard the pork was not his. Question by same Did he direct vou in that in stance, to deduct the pork from the provision bill, with which he was then charged on the kitchen book, and tn debit his private account with tho balance as lornieriy t Answer He did ? Question by same What was tho amount of his provision bill at that timo, as por the kitchen book, and the quantity of tho pork for which ho claimed a credit ? Answor The provision bill was $85 (15 ; the pork, 2837 pounds, amounting to $50 74. Question by same What reason did Mr. Van Hook give for insisting so strenuously, that only tho balance in that instance, should bo entered in his privato account, and for striking out 2000 pounds, from the pork credit as you have stated ? Answer Ho gave no reason for wanting the bal ance only entered ; that I did of my own accord. He said that he wanted the pork credit altered, be cause tho directors would think it too much; ho wanted me in the first place, to reduce the amount of pork one half. Question by samo When did you first learn that tho pork, for which Mr. Van Hook, was receiving credit, as you have staled, did not belong to him ? Answer I think it was in the summer ot 1841. IV-ITAe Franklin Bank Paper. A. M'Elvaim. Question by Mr. Spalding You havo said there were some other things which vou thouirhtwronr in .Mr, Van Hook, which do not appear in tho private account ; will jou please to state what thoso things are, or were ? Answer There was a per ccntage ho received from Mr. Hayden, and others; the money was paid in Franklin Bunk money, and Mr. Van Hook charged them fivo per centum, and did not account to the State for the Bame, bb it appeurcd from the testimony. uucstion by same Uo you know what rrunklm Dank piicr wus worth in Columbus, as compared with specio or specie pavinir bank naoer in tho month of May last? Answer I think about five percent discount Mr. Jeffries states: Iliad learned that Mr. Van Hook had received Franklin Bank paper, and rccciv- itii live per cent, which he did not pay over to the iisuiuiion. Question bv Mr, SpaldinL' I wish to know from you if there is any other within your knowledge, who has ever testified, or is prepnrcd to testify thut Mr. Vnn Hoo'i did not account for tho five oer cent, on the Frnuklin Hank paper, besides yourself? Answer 1 think ihere is, air. 1 Hunk Mr. Hayden will testify, thut the five per cent wus not accounted lor until alter tlio investigation, and also Mr. Warner.Question by Mr. Swavne Did Mr Van Hook give you any account of the percentage or premium id to you hy Mr. Hayrlen,on the Frunklin Bank paper? Answer io sir, no did not Question by same Has thai per centals ever been charged to Mr. Van Hook, on the books of the prison, or in any way accounted for by him to the State? Answer no; 1 understood that it wns paid back to Mr. Hnyden by order of the directors. Peter Hatpk. Question bv Mr. Snaldinir Did Mr. Van Hook ro. fund to you twenty dollars, that was received from your clerk, as discount upun $100 of Franklin Bank paper, during your absence east i Answer He did. Quesiion bv Mr. Swavne At what time did Mr. Van i look pay back to you the per centago on tho Franklin Bank money ? Answer It was alter his discharre from the nria- on. Mr. Van Hook and myself had a conversation about the matter, after I returned from the east, and a short time before the investicrallon; he said he had heard I was dissntislicd, and, if to, he would pay it hack to ine, and two or three weeks afterwards he did so. A. II. Warmer. Question by Sir. Swavne Did vnu nnv Mr. Van Hook some Franklin Bank money, and a premium on tho same, while ho was Warden of the Penitentiary; if so, state how much, tho amount of tho premium, and when it was paid ? Answer I paid Mr. Van Hook, in April or May last, something short of four hundred dollars, $ J00 was in franklin iinnk paper. 1 natd hint five ner cent, on me .-.uu rrunklm Uank paper; 1 paid it account ol .Mr. Burdell's contract for hands at Iho penitentiary. Question by same Did Mr. Van Hook Bay any uung to vou at ine time on me subject ol not disclosing the matter; if so. what did he sav f Answer Ho said ho would take the money and endeavor to use it Ho said ho did not know but that thero might be an imputation against him for using money at a discount Mr. Van llook said that perhaps, he could use it by paying it out at a small discount He impressed mo with the idea thai ne uiu not wish me tu mention it ; so much so, that I did not mention it for a long time. This testimony speaks for itself. It needs no ar gument to render it intetliirible. nortn noimits oiferr It is marked by the directness and simplicity of truth, and must rivet conviction noon tlio mind of ovory one wno reads it There la some further tes timony in regnrd to each of the charges; but none that detracts from the force of that which has been tooted. It will all bo published. It is, therefore, deemed unnecessary to swell this report b further quoiations. Not even an attempt has been made to explain or renin tlio charge ol purloining money f.om tho visitors' box. It is said that Mr. Vun llook, n iv urucn, uau a ngni lo control it This is admit, led. But had he a right to take it tecrttlu. and with- oni rendering any account? This simplo inquiry demolishes the flimsv pretext under which ho attempts lo shield himself. Why did he keep a key secretly, and deny having ono ? Why did ho cnd lira clerk away, and avail himself of such occasions to abstract money from tho box ? 1 heso are nuestions that cannot he reennritoit with his innocence. It may be said that the sums takun were small in themselves, and small in Uio aggregate. Il is thus that guilt usually commences its career. Many a man will commit a small crime, who would not tenltiro to commit a large one. Such pettv ab stractions might bo overlooked. Tha abstraction of, a large sum would be mure likely to bo followed bv detection and exposure. Finally, Ms proof it dear ana cnnrriisive. i no amount ttiereloro, as regards ine question ol guilt, is immaterial. 1 he same remark mav bo made in rerard to lha fifty-throe yatda of muslin. No ona can read the testimony ut Christ and the directors, on Una sub ject. without being satisfied 1 lint it was the intention t Mr. V an llook to obtain the muslin without paving for it llo told Mr. Christ that lie had "bouulit it;" "that it was his;" and he look it without render ing any account of it to tho clerk. 1 ho testimony shows clearly, that it was bought by, and for tho Slain, with a lares number of oilier pieces. It wot not his, and he knew there was no foundation for such a pretence. After ho was warned that an in vt-atigation was about to be made, and a few days belore it was commenced, he had it charged to hun on the books of the prison. Why was this delay in making the charge? Why was it msdo at that particular time? The keenest accumcn may be safely challenged to rcconcilo llieso lacts with tlio slightest supposition of Ins innocenco. 1 here was a circum- stance in his conduct during the fonnor investiga tion, that goes further to confirm tho truth of i!ub chargo, I lo caught eagerly at tlio suggestion of one ol the directors, in lus elimination ot a witness upon this subject, that the cotton might havo been taken into hiB house merely to he made up for the prison, and manifested a dtsptwitinn to insist that such had been tho tact When he lound Uiat the testimo ny would not sustain him on this ground, ho at once abandoned it (See the second deposition nf A. II. Patterson, and tho deposition of William Spencer.) He claims that the hogs were given tn him by Mr. Medbery, Iho former warden. Mr. Medbery's testimony shows thai there was not a shadow of reason for such a pretence, and that Mr. Van llook could not havo been mistaken upon the subject Mr.Med-bery states, that the hogs were worth from two to three hundred dollars por year to tho prison. He could nn mora have thought of giving Mr. Van llook the hogs, than any other properly belonging to the State. Nor, if ho had claimed them a his own, could Mr. Van Hook have expected to receive from him so valuable a donation ? Thero is ono fact stated by Mr. Medbery, which is conclusive upon the subject Some months after he had quitted the prison, remembering that he had left four or five hoga there, belonging to himself, which he had not mentioned to Mr. Vsn Hook ; he then montioned the subject to him, and proposed to give them to him for a barrel of pork. Mr. Van Hook accepted the odor, and did not claim, or pretend, that Mr. Medbery had previously given or sold him those or any other hogs. It is, also, a tact worty of note, that when Mr. Medbery was examined in the investigation made h rha directors, Mr. Van Hook, although he must have known thq importance of his testimony, neither attended, nor caused him to be asked a single question, His conduct in regard lo the por centage uion the Franklin Bank paper, was nn less culpable. He was authorized by the directors to recoivo it at par. He exacted from Mr. Hayden's clerk five per cent upon it He passed over the oaner tn die nrilnn nf nr value, and pocketed the premium, without giving any account of it. After the fact came to light, he called upon Mr. Hayden and paid the premium back, Tho Franklin Bank paper was then worth live per cent Icbb than gold or silver. It is said in his justification, Ihut he received some of the same kind of paper from the Slate, at par, in payment of hie salary. Does this excuse his exacting a premium, when he was authorised to rcceivo the paper at par, and then pocketing tho premium without rendering anv ac count of it? This pretence, and afterthought, are too shallow to require a serious answer. It wore easy for the undersigned, greatly to multiply and extend his remarks, in regard to each of tno enarges. it would bo an unnecessary consumption of time tn do so. He deems what he has said more than sufficient. His purpose is simply to discharge his duty, snd to do it as briefly as possible. V The Uobbery of the Safe. The undersigned, considers it his dutv. also, to present Uie evidence upon this Bubjcct It is as follows : Joil.t IIiiffmah, (Deputy Warden of Penitentiary.) viuesuuii oy mr. nwnyne At what tune was the drawer oiened, snd the safe robbed ? Answer I think it was m Uiofall of 1811. Question by samo Do you know how much mnn. cy was taken ? Answer 1 think in the neighborhood of $300, but I am not certain. Question by same Please state the facts, within yoor knowledge, in regard to that subject? ' wna nine orawer in ine neas, in which the key of the aafo was knot : the hniior ihst shut over it had been pried open ; the drawer had ocen opened by cutting around where the bolt of the lock nin up; the kev had been obtained, and the safe opened; the little drawer on tho insido of the safe hud been broken or pried open, and act out These facts came to my knowledge eurly in the morning ; I think before sunrise. Question bv same Vrss there a rnnvnpsstinn An the anbicct that morninn in rl,n nV. .n,l ;r . state who were present ut it? Answer I did not hoar any conversation ; a number were present, among them woro Mr. Van Hook and Bsiley. Quesiion by some Did Mr. Van Hook, soon after. say any Uiing lo you abuut Bailey ; if so, stato what it was ? Answor A day or two after that, he said. I should keep my eye on Bailey; Ihot ho felt suspicious of him ; and not to say any thing about it, but keep it to myself. Question by same Did he tell vou of what ha suspected Bailey ? Answer He sustiectPd Bailey or breaking open the safe ; that was what he meant Question by same Did he discharge Bailey ? Answer No. Question by Mr. Snaldinir Did not Mr. Van Hnolr tell you the reason why he suspected Bailoy ; and, if so, what was Uint reason ? Answer the reason was. that Ballcv was shout buying a house and lot. A prisoner made tho inquiry of sacob Huffman, if he knew Bailey, and remarked, that Bailey was worth watching; tho latter part of the conversation wc bad sometime after tha first Question by same Did not Mr. Vsn Hnnlr ins yourself make an examination of the ollice windows, nnd tho ground sdjaccnt; if so, what traces did you discover of one of the windowa havinpr been opened, and were there footsteps on the ootaidc ? Answer we did not discover that the window had been opened ; the ground was a little torn up about the window. I don't recollect that there were any font prints. Question by ssme Was there not another person Biispecled, of the namo of Hanley, w ho had been t sen-ant in tho office, &c ? Answor there was. It was the general suspicion, by all hands, that llanly was the ono who broke open the office. Question by Mr. Swayne You have staled that you saw no appearance of foot prints under tho window, and nono of the windows having been opened. Was tho ground under the window so oft that feet there would havo left their prints ? Answer I think it was. Question by samo What reason was there for suspecting Hanley? Answer There was no reason, except that he wa a runner there a short time before, and might have seen Mr. Jelfries open tho safe, and know where he kept Uie key. The same man has been since brought bsck a prisoner. He had been prisoner before. Question by same You have stated that Hanley waa suspected by all hands at the tine. Was another person suspected very soon afterwards ; and, if so, who was it? Answer There was no othor man suspected very soon afterwards, until about the time of Uie investigation by the directors. 1 was in tho cooper's shop, and Mr. llelford, who had charge of Uiat shop, asked me if Mr. Bailey had ever told me who he saw Uio morning that the safe was broken open, coming out of the front ollice at Iho aide door, and run across the passage and enlor the parlor in his atocking fcot, and nothing but his pantaloons and shirt on, I answered him, no, I had not He then told mo that him and Mr. Bailey was on the watch together the next night after tho aafe waa broken open ; Bailey told him that he saw a man run out of that door, as I before stated, snd run into the parlor, and the thought struck him that moment that it waa Mr. Van Hook. After Mr. llelford told me this story, I Uien told him what Mr. Van I look had told mo in the office in respect to M r. Bailey. Wilet S. Bailet Question by Mr. Swayne Whero were you at the lime Uio drawer was broken open, and the aafe robbed, at the prison ? Answer I was at the prison Uio morning after the robbery. Question by same Please state any facia in regard lo that Bubject within your knowledgo ? Answor! went up noxt morning just after day light as I usuall dono. and was going in at the front door, when I aaw a man go across the hall into Ihe silling room. I wundored to myself what wus the matter, and thought it unusual lhat Mr. Van Hook should be up so early that morning. I thought it wus earlier than I had usually seen him get up before. I turned my head lo look into the sitting room aa I went past but could not see anvthinir. I went on into the guard room, and aat down. Mr. Hun. man came in soon afterwards and blew the horn. The waiter went into the ollico lo make a fire, and Mr. Rmilh came down stairs at the time, and tho waiter called hint into the ntfice. A short lime afterwards Smith came into the guard room and said Uiat some person had been into the office, and Uiat the safe door was open, and wo all went in to seo what waa Uie matlor, and found the visitors' box cut or broken open, and tho point of a knife laying on Uio desk. I gave Uie knife blade tn Mr. Huffman, who said he would take care of it Mr. Jeffries wna then waked up, and came down, and Mr, Van Hook came into Uie office. There waa some four or fivo of ua there, and I was standing before the fire talking with Mr. llelford, telling hun that I had seen a man, as 1 came in that morning, run across the hall into tho sitting room, Mr. Van llook was standing before ns, anil 1 suppose heard what I said to Mr, llelford. He turned about and walked olf, and made no reply to what I had aaid. Mr. llelford and myself went around and examined under the window to see if we could find any tracks, and found nono. Ve also examined the wall lhat must have been climbed to got into the window, and found no marks on il. We did not examine Ihe siish particularly. The shutters are insido, and I Uiink were not closed that morning. Question Tiy same Was tho robbery committed in the ollico, and did you see tho person you have mentioned, pass from the office to the silting room across the hall which separates them ? Answor Tho robbery waa romnutted in (he office, and I did see the person I have mentioned cross the hall between thoin, from Uie office to Uie sitting room. Question hy Bame Was the sitting room one of the private aparlmenla occupied at Uiat time by Mr. Van Hook? NUMBER 34. Answer It was. Question by same How was the narsnn vnn US' cross the hull clad? Answer He woe in his shirt and nantalnnns nil I Uiink in his stocking feet? iiuesuon by same Had you any doubt at tha time, or have you now, who it was ? Answer 1 had not Question by same Did you then, and do you still believe, it was Mr. Van Hook? Answer I did, and do. Question by sums Are you sure Mr. Vsn Hook was near enough lo have hoard the conversation von have menuoned, between youreelf and Belford ? Answer l aia Quesiion by same Did ho leave tho apartment immediately after hearintr Uiat statement made by you to Belford ? Answer He did. Question Did he ever after mention that ennver. . aalion to you ? Answer He did not Question by Mr. Spalding When did Mr. Huff man first tell vou Uiat Mr. Van Hook suspected vou of committing Uiat robbery ? Answer I think in last June, during the first investigation ; that was the first I ever heard of it Question by same Was the front door open when you approached the house that morning f Answer It was : they were folding doors, and ono half open. Question by same Was the safe in the front or Uie back office ? Answer In Uie back office. Question bv same Did vou see the man enms from the front ollice or back office in tho ailting room ? Answer I did net see him como from either office. He was in Uie set of stepping into the silltintr room. apparently as if he hud crossed the hall. Question by same Where did you stand when you sow hun ? Answer 1 was just cominir in at the front door. R. S. Bkelsforii, snya Queation by Mr. Swayne Were you in the office of the Penitentiary early in Uie morning after the urawcr was broken open and the sato robbed ? If so, was thero a conversation Uiere at Uiat time between yourself and Wiley 8. Bailey ? Answer There was no conversation between mv. self and Bailey on Uie next morning. I heard Bai ley suy mat morning, in the olhce, that he had seen a man pass from the front office door in the parlor across the pussage, that morning, as he came in. I supposed Uiat ho was addressing himself to Mr. Van Hook, as he looked towards him when he made tho remark. There were a number of persons present at the time. Question by same was Mr. Van Hook near enough to havo heard him? Answer 1 should Uiink he was. He was full as near as I was. Question by snme Did Mr. Van Hook make any reply ; if so, whut was it ? Answer llo did not that I recollect of. Ho walked out, I. Ihink, directly afterwards. Ho waa only part dressed at Uie time. Question hy Bame Did you examine the ground near the window immediately after Uie robbery waa discovered ? Answer I went out shortly after the robbery waa discovered, and did not see any tracks. Question oy same Who were present at that ex amination of the ground ? Answer -1 hero were others, but who they were. I cannot say. 1 Uiink Mr. Van Hook was not present Peter Hatpe.i. Question by Mr. Spalding Do vou recollect be ing at the Penitentiary the morning after tho safe was said to have been robbed ; and if so, did you go into the yard with Mr. Van Hook, to examine whether there was sny tracks near tho window supposed to have been robbed ? State what you discovered, and whether Mr. Van Hook, in your presence, measured Uie tracks? Answer I was thero the next morning, between eight and ninu o'clock in tho morning. I examined Ihe window myself, and found that it waa not fastened. and lhat it wns not the practice to fasten it When I went into the ollico, Uiey were talking about Uio robbery, and it was suggested by some of them that Uie robbor had entered the window. Mr. Van Hook amino for tracks. We found quite a number of tracks in stocking feet and one waa quite plain, and appeared to step into me water sill of Uie building. This track upon the water sill was where a person wouiu naiurauy nave to go to get into Uie house through the window. I supposed at the time thoso tracks were made by the person or persona who had robbed Uie ollice the night previous, and I hoard no other opinion expressed at Uie time. I don't know that there waa any rule used at the time, or Uiat Mr. Van llook measure any of the tracks, I don't think he did while 1 was Uiere. Question bv Mr. Swavne Who went round with you and Mr. Van Hook? Answer I cannot tell who it was, and am not pos itive that there was any ono. Question by Bame Abuut what time did you make the examination ? Answer Aftor breakfast : I should think between eight and nino o'clock, and nearer nine than eight Question oy same Did you nnd tracks under the window which had been made by thoae who had pivtiuuBiy cAnmiuvu uio gruunu r Answer Anere were iracas around mere, maoo by shoes, not exactly under the window, which did not excite my suspicion, which I supposed had been made by thoso who had previously exsmined. Question by same Was any thin? aaid in the of fice before you went out to make Uie examination about Ihe stocking tracks under Uie window, or the track on the water table ? Answer I do not recollect that there waa any think said about the stocking tracks. There waa considerable confusion, and a good deal aaid, and all appeared to agree Uiat tho robber had entered by the window. I supposod Uiat Uioy had previously examined, aa Uiere were many tracks around which did not excite any suspicion, and were not examined by .11 r. van llook or myaelt, as being the tracks ot Uie robber. The undersigned will not say that the tcslii..iny fixes the commission of Uie robbery upon any one ; nevertheless, it suggests some remarka which be feels bound to make. The ground under the window which was suppos ed to have been entered, was soft Nu ono could approach Uie window without leaving hie footprints. An examination ol Ihe ground and window was made early the next morning, immediately after the robbery waa discovered. There were then no footmarks and no indications lhat Uie window had been entered. Mr. Van Hook took Mr. Hayden out between eight and nine o'clock Uiat morning, and with him examined the ground. Footmarks were then visible, and there was then dirt on Uie water tablo, as if it had been left Uiere by some ono climbinir in at the win dow. Mr. Bailey, a witness, of ummpeached character, saw Mr. Van Hook half dressed and in hia Blocking feet, run across the hall from the office very cany mat morning, immediately alter the rubbery waa discovered, ho atsted in Uie hearing of Mr, Van llook, that he had seena man, (without naming him,) under those circumstances. Mr. Van llook made no reply, hut immediately left the office. Two or three days afterwards he endoavored secretly to direct the suspicions of Mr. Hullinan, the deputy warden, to .nr. iiaiiey as me robber, mere is no evidence mat in any of Uie conversations about the robbery, he ev er once adverted to Uie fact stated by Bailey. When Bailey waa testifying before the committee, Mr. Van Hook admitted that he was the person seen by him in the hall that morning. Aa far as Uie committee are informed, Mr. Van llook has never attempted UT explain this mysterious fact it remains wholly unexplained to this day. It is certain Uie robbery waa committed by some one well acquainted with all Uie localities of Uie of- nee. 1 his is s painuil subject, and Uie undersigned will comment upon it no furUier. 1 tie testimony discloses a number of other petty Mtciilnlinna deserving reprehension. They are, however, eclipsed in importance by thoso which have been considered. If the testimony bo believod, enough has been already shown for evory purpose. Tho undorsigned will therefore merely mention three ' of (hem without further remark. It appears that Mr. Van llook made use of his of ficial station to induce Mr. Pinney, a large contractor at tho orison, to irive him an account which he owed him, receipted, amounting to about $120, with out any equivalent (See 1'inney a deposition belore Uie ilirectora, Ho sold a considerable quantity of apoiled meat belonging to the prison to Mr. Aston, a soap chandler. During the investigation made by the directors he requested Mr. Pinney, who waa aware of Uie fact, not to disclose it- -w - Upon ono ecca-ion lie took all the host rie.-es of a litriro nimmitw of h.-rtf which hkit tiecn hollfrKt tor , Fr 1 . ' . . r - - tno prison, u wnt em op auu cw"g uve 1 , of the State. He consumed a ptu of thut i t M !,n " took and sold the residue, charn;; rturw-if on the books of tlio prison wiih only it;- of the whok- 111 a green Stale. See Martin Vt hilo s fle)rsnion. Mr. Van Hook subnullcd to tin couiuutuio a writ-